Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and Modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • 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.

Contents

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]

Shortcut
  • 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, 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]

Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "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 itself or 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 from a foreign language title 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 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]

Shortcut

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. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. 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.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered and non-confirmed users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand.) This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are 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 → 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 → 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.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

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]

Shortcut
I.
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. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • 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
II.
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|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{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.
III.
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:RFDNote|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]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • 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]

April 14[edit]

Tata Indicom photon+[edit]

Not mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 27W (Urduja) (2009)[edit]

Not a formal redirect, Tropical Depression 27W (2009) and Tropical Depression Urduja (2009) already existed B dash (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This redirect is used on the disambig page Typhoon Urduja. If the redirect is not in a standard format for tropical storms (is there such a thing?), the disambig page can be changed, but it makes no sense to just delete the redirect until the dab page is modified. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Tino[edit]

More than one storm named "Tino" B dash (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Bising[edit]

More than one storm named "Bising" B dash (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

St. Joseph High Road[edit]

{{R from merge}}, but no longer mentioned. Before the merge, it was a few sentences about how this is an important commercial road in the town. Despite the generic-sounding name, I can't find another road with this exact name, but it does mean that a reader searching for it is probably looking for specific information and is already aware of Ħamrun generally. BDD (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

High Inquisitor[edit]

Common title in fiction not limited to Harry Potter, not to mention real-world uses like the head of the Portuguese Inquisition (e.g., José of Braganza, High Inquisitor of Portugal). My gut says this isn't a good candidate for disambiguation, but someone else could try a draft. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: See also Grand Inquisitor. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    Good find. I wonder if we could expand the scope of that one, or if we'd be veering too much into WP:OR territory. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    @BDD: The scope should be the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions. Both of them used the term "Grand Inquisitor". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Echinops (genus)[edit]

There are two genera called Echinops. Echinops is a plant, and there is also Echinops (mammal)./Echinops (tenrec) which redirect to Lesser hedgehog tenrec. Echinops (genus) previously pointed to the mammal, but it ambiguous. I've retargeted it to the plant, as that is the article at the base title. I'd prefer to just have it deleted. The only other option that really seems reasonable is to create a disambiguation page and have the (genus) redirect point there, but I don't think a two entry dab page is really warranted in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep While you know I highly respect your opinions on taxonomy, I don't see a problem with this one. I agree that a WP:TWODAB situation isn't desirable, but you've already solved the problem! As things stand now, the plant genus is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Echinops", and the plant genus is, of course, a genus. The existing hatnote will be just as useful to the reader who searches "Echinops (genus)" as the one who searches "Echinops". --BDD (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The standard addition for disambiguating genera is now "(KIND)", e.g. "(plant)", "(mammal)", "(frog)". We should strongly discourage use of the ambiguous "(genus)". (I wouldn't object to the strictly superfluous, but perhaps very occasionally useful, Echinops (plant).) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. Searching for "(genus)" is and will remain a very plausible search term for people looking for information on a genus - we don't require people to know our naming conventions in order to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. My preference is to delete because of ambiguity. If it is kept, the question then becomes what does it link to, or does it become a disambig page?....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Per BDD the plant genus is primary topic, and there is a hatnote to the mammal genus. It's a standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to a primary topic, of which there are countless other examples. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
      • so I have a question, I looked at pageviews for the plant and the animal. The animal has roughly 10 more looks per day than the plant. Should Echinops then become a redirect for Echinops (plant) and Echinops (mammal) or Echinops (tenrec)?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
        • If you think that either there is no primary topic for "Echinops", or that the mammal article should remain where it is but that "Echinops" should redirect there then you need to start a requested move for the plant genus article. If you think the mammal article should be at "Echinops" you need to start a requested move for that article. However while there is an article about a genus at "Echniops" this redirect should point to it, regardless of what genus that is. If "Echinops" were to become a disambiguation page then this redirect should point to that disambiguation page. If "Echinops" becomes a redirect to an article about a genus at some other title then this redirect should point to that same article. If "Echinops" becomes (a redirect to) an article about something other than a genus, then "Echinops (genus)" should either be a disambiguation page or point to whichever genus is primary between the two. In no circumstances should "Echinops" and "Echinops (genus)" lead to articles about different genera. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bandari music[edit]

Re-targeting "Bandari dance" to a new article for the subject matter Bandari dance, a draft of this stub article has already been created. Jooojay (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Racism of low expectations[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Also, should this go to Michael Gerson#Lines attributed to Gerson (where "soft bigotry of low expectations" is mentioned) instead?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

8th Regiment New York State Militia[edit]

Requesting deletion of these two redirects. I created them, then decided they would be better with "Infantry" at the end of their names, to avoid possible confusion with other units. I have already linked the new redirects and de-linked these. RobDuch (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal protopresbyter[edit]

Term as such not mentioned in given target. No obvious synonymy. Hildeoc (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: It is a transliteration of the Italian protopresbitero as given in the lede of the target article. RobDuch (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Results of the 2020 Rio Carnival[edit]

Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect that is WP:SURPRISEing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget' somewhere if there is somewhere relevant or Delete. Articles exist for at least 2010-2019, so this is not an implausible search term but the current target is definitely a surprise. I'd like to retarget it somewhere relevant, but I've not managed to find any such target. Rio Carnival Leagues seems to be the closest to a parent article, and that does have some results, but seems incomplete as there is no mention of Grupo Especial or Séria A and has no content about future contests. Indeed we seem to have no articles about the individual contests, or even the individual carnivals (2020 Rio Carnival and 2019 Rio Carnival are both red for example) and the main Rio Carnival article is too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

GOvernor of Georgia[edit]

This should be deleted, as there's already a redirect from Governor of Georgia. Peter James (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible typo. There's no reason, and has never been, to keep these useless redirects; the search function works well in their place. Geolodus (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per the above two editors.Onel5969 TT me 14:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CycloneYoris talk! 20:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Aisa (One Piece)[edit]

Minor character that isn't mentioned at all in the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservation ecology (disambiguation)[edit]

I recently redirected Conservation ecology to Conservation biology and added a hatnote there to Conservation Ecology. Per WP:2DABS, disambiguation pages are not necessary when only two pages share the ambiguous title. Cnilep (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ataro[edit]

This used to redirect to a section of the lightsaber combat article. The content in question hasn't existed for years and this redirect was a misspelling of a fictional element that is no longer mentioned in any article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 01W(2011)[edit]

Redirects are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Tropical Depression 01W (2011), I see no reason why we should keep this B dash (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical depression 01w(2012)[edit]

Redirects are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Tropical depression 01w (2012), I see no reason why we should keep this B dash (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 01W(2012)[edit]

Redirects are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Tropical Depression 01W (2012), I see no reason why we should keep this B dash (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Arayan[edit]

History is ripe with copyright violations. Some have been revdelled, but every meaningful revision is a copyvio. I recommend deleting, re-creating as redirect, and protecting. wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

Splck[edit]

Nonsense. This apparently existed as an article, and was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splck). I'm confused because Karl Dickman's edit history shows him CREATING this redirect in the edit before he closed the deletion discussion as "deleted". Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The redirect was created shortly after the article was deleted, presumably because there was a single comment suggesting a merge. It should have been fully deleted as nonsense even by 2005 standards. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There are only four uses in google results that are not nonsense - a kindergarten in Hong Kong, the username of a Fortnite player and (part of?) the product code for a printer and a memory stick on overstock.com. None of these come within a mile of being notable topics for the encyclopaedia and so even if this term was in widespread use for them (which it isn't) there is nowhere to point it. An none of these uses have any relation to rainbow trout. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Wide image[edit]

Delete Cross namespace redirects that generate a high level of WP:SURPRISE. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

P:Freedom[edit]

Delete as misleading, since there are many other possible freedoms that could have Portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete redirects to portals are pretty useless because portals are not wikilinked in the text of articles Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment redirects, including P: and other pseudo-namespace redirects are intended for searching as much as for linking. Lack of links is explicitly not a reason on its own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are no other portals with "Freedom" in the title, and (potential) ambiguity is not normally an issue with shortcut redirects like this one, and the stats show it does get some use. All in all I'm not seeing that there is any reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same rationale applies to Portal:Freedom, which I am adding to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Freedom is much broader than speech. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Peter James (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

More superfluous brackets[edit]

Delete all per prior outcomes at RfD (here, here, here, etc.). All ending with superfluous brackets or other characters, none of these seem like valid search terms .No indication of any potential usefulness, no links from mainspace, no significant history. PC78 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all Given the prior RfD outcomes, these are all CSD G6, housekeeping. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all housekeeping Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Per previous RFDs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-irony[edit]

Term as such not included within relevant target section. No obvious synonymy. Hildeoc (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TehSpe.de[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per UnitedStatesian, can't find it in the article. Perhaps at one time it was in the Foreign section, but not currently. Onel5969 TT me 01:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in Wikipedia (provable by searching for the term). The supposedly mentioned website does not even seem to exist.[1] Geolodus (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. According to WikiBlame, the term has never been in the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ tehspe.de

15 Films About Madonna[edit]

Not notable nor mentioned in the target article whatsoever! Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SearchSuite[edit]

Delete WP:COSTLY misleading and unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's unusual for the documentation to be on the talk page but there are many similar redirects to the user namespace. Peter James (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Peter James. This is not misleading and "unnecessary" is very subjective and not a reason to delete a redirect. There is no prohibition on Wikipedia: → User: redirects as a general case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WILDCARD[edit]

Delete WP:COSTLY misleading and unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all: Wikipedia → Help (and vice versa) redirects are almost always very useful as many such pages can be in either namespace without a clear pattern. CNRs are only problematic if they actually cause confusion or lead people away from the type of content they are expecting (most commonly this applies to redirects from mainspace to project space). There doesn't seem to be anything obviously misleading about any of these specific redirects either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The line between Wikipedia space and Help space is very blurry. Absent any actual harm, these CNRs are fine in general. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Lexit[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, or in the body of any other articles with the exception of Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) and Issues in anarchism, neither of which would be an appropriate target. A soft redirect to wikt:Lexit might be a possibility. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – Never heard that word in umpteen hours of reporting on Brexit. Made up by some editor? — JFG talk 06:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – it is very much a real word that was used during the referendum campaign by left wing Eurosceptics. A Google search proves as much. --RaviC (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the word was fairly widely used in 2016 and, as I said above, is mentioned in two articles. That doesn't however mean that redirecting it to an article that doesn't use or mention it is helpful: if a reader searches for this term then they're most likely to be looking for a definition and/or encyclopaedic information about it, neither of which is provided by the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I see. Originally, there was a reasonable amount of content regarding Lexit in that article. Since it has ultimately been removed, a retarget is probably due. --RaviC (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Armorial of the United States[edit]

I have been largely inactive on Wikipedia for the past year or two. I recently discovered that Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876, a list article that I started, developed, and brought through the FLC process to Featured List, was redirected to Armorial of the United States. The substance of the FL Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 was copied and pasted into Armorial, along with the FL tag. Since this merge the content that was Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 has been hacked to pieces. I think this was an inappropriate redirect and destruction of a FL that was on a very specific aspect (engraving) of coats of arms based on a 1876 publication by engraver Louis Prang.--Godot13 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Leia the slave[edit]

Not a valid name or title. It was originally an article fork that should have simply been deleted at the time. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not very familiar with Star Wars, but it seems that Leia being a slave is an important plot point. If so, this should redirect to where that is most thoroughly discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to either Princess Leia#Return of the Jedi (my preference) or Princess Leia's bikini (distant second) would be OK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mauricie[edit]

I had redirected the portal page but then the other regions of Quebec pages were all deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. So as a housekeeping matter we should delete the cross namespace redirect based on the MfD result. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Portal:Quebec which would seem to be more useful for anyone searching for this sub-topic. I would also apply this to the other regions of Quebec too (this was not discussed in the MfD). Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. No one is searching for these regions in portal space and we don't need portal redirects from every region and city and village in a place that contains them. That would create huge clutter. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the result of the MfD. A retarget to Portal:Quebec would be misleading because it does not specifically cover Mauricie. -- Tavix (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Portal redirects that are not spelling or punctuation variants serve no purpose. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • we held an MFD and we held several similar ones for Ontario, India, US Counties. This is in keeping with all those results. Will you persist in going against clear consensus iver and over at ever ly turn? The was no merger here. There is no benefit for linking or the reader who is not searching for this in portal space. Just delete the darn page as housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Please stop personalising matters. The consensus found that the topic should not have it's own portal, it did not discuss redirects at all so there is no prior consensus (for or against) regarding them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually redirecting was always an option in the MfD discussions but no one wanted that. Would we have 3400 counties redirected to their state portals? How about 723 districts of India redirects? If clseone started building those we would stop them. On your other point pot meet kettle. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
If something is not discussed in a discussion, it cannot be assumed that there is consensus for or against it. If the county/district names are unambiguous, then I don't see why redirecting them would be an issue they'll as useful as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Captive audience meetings[edit]

This union-busting tactic doesn't seem to be discussed at the target article, at least by name. Since the phrase could describe any sort of mandatory meeting, it's not a helpful redirect right now. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

KFMASH[edit]

Section heading was added Feb 28th, but no content. Unhelpful redirect until there's some content in the article. PamD 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Morgan Ricke[edit]

No point in having this redirect. This redirect was created after the article about her had been deleted. If we are going to have this redirect here, then we need to redirect each survivor contestant to the list as well. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, all Survivor contestants are redirected to that list, unless they have an article of their own. This has been standard procedure for a long time. No need to change a thing. Vote: Keep. Greggens (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as that is how we handle all reality shows. It discourages article creation on non-notable people. Legacypac (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Main[edit]

Very confusing portal redirect clutter, especially since when the target page displays, it suppresses any "Redirected from" indication of how one got there. No "production" inbound links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as clutter. Legacypac (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the main page is exactly what someone using this redirect will be looking for: The main portal to Wikipedia. The redirect has existed since 2007 without any problems at all. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There are just so, so many ways of accessing the main page already. This one feels like a WP:SURPRISE with the redirect message suppressed. I would have expected this to go to Portal:Contents/Portals anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Featured topics[edit]

Closing Admin: These pages may have unused subpages to delete too.

Unused portal redirect clutter. Zero to One page view in the last month. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unneeded and confusing cross-namespace redirects. I believe they qualify for G6 housekeeping deletion (CNR Portal:Lost was recently G6 deleted). UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure whether they are useful, but they are very definitely not G6 candidates as they do not meet any aspect of that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:IndyCar:Did you know[edit]

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

Georgia State Route 77 Spur (Hartwell)[edit]

This highway has never entered Hartwell. It is entirely within rural portions of Hart County. A Hart County-specific redirect is about to be started. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Varanasi[edit]

Redirect to the country page , 15 January 2016‎ DexDor replace by redir to higher level portal (this is just a copy of bit of article and a load of redlinks). There is nothing specific about the subject at the target and this in really a big search term because it is in portal space. The redirect may have subpages to delete as well. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete as not mentioned in target Portal. Note to RfD participants who check the "what links here" on this one and the ones that follow: the links to the redirect are implemented with a parameter in the {{portal}} template, which automatically suppresses the display of a redlink if the portal does not exist. Accordingly, deletion of any portal redirect will not cause any redlinks to display. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Suicide[edit]

The history of this title is troubled. Its been abandoned unfinished, restarted but with serious errors, and then redirected. There is no specific suicide content at Portal:Death and in general a portal on suicide is a bad idea because so few editors watch portals and they handle topics at such a shallow level. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Queen[edit]

A confusing redirect given Portal:Queens regnant, Portal:Monarchy, Portal:Royalty exist as well. Turning to a dab is not helpful as many or all of the targets are under discussion for deletion or will soon be nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambig. A likely search term, and as long as there are currently multiple relevant portals a dab page makes sense. Iff all the target portals are deleted (which seems unlikely) then this can be deleted as G8. If all but one are deleted then it can just be boldly redirected to that portal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It's almost a random word. There are also portals for Portal:Queen Elizabeth II and likely more. Let search do it's job. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Neue Deutsche Härte[edit]

A subgenre of rock music but you will not find any info at the target on it. Closing Admin should check for any subpages to this redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Netherlands Antilles[edit]

Note to closing Admin: the subject has unused subpages that should be deleted as housekeeping.

Not a useful redirect. The 2013 page move was to Portal:Aruba and you will not find any content on the old name of the countries former colonies in the present target Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Marion County, Florida[edit]

Old redirect from 2013. We have eliminated all US county portals at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals so removing this redirect is housekeeping. No one is likely to search for a portal on this county and there is no specific content at the portal about this county Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 11[edit]

Template:Cv[edit]

Seems more appropriate to redirect to Template:Like resume, as CV is another name for resume. Launchballer 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • No opinion but on Wikipedia CV means CopyVio Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: For what it's worth, at the present time, this redirect has no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't suppose it would! It was my understanding that warnings were supposed to be substituted.--Launchballer 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    The only reason I stated what I stated is to show that this redirect is safe to delete or retarget since it has no transclusions (which is a rather valid concern since retargeting a transcluded redirect potentially breaks things.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. WP:XY applies here. feminist (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)[edit]

Delete Strange cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: the reason for this redirect's existence is explained by its author in the creating edit summary. I have no particular thoughts in this discussion, just wanted to make sure everyone is aware. Geolodus (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Geolodus: Resolved (redirect bypassed per Wikipedia:Transclusion: This redirect has no remaining transclusions.) The creator could have just transcluded the article instead of create a new cross-namespace redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Lepidoptera because it exists. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:North American Roads[edit]

From a page move but misleading. There are also roads in Canada, Mexico and other places that form North America There is even Portal:Roads of Canada Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete artifact of a failed portal merger. --Rschen7754 00:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unneeded redirect from portal move from 2007. Dough4872 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Guided Missiles of India[edit]

This was from a weird move "remake portal". Serves no use whatsoever. Also the redirect has unused subpages that should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: useless and somewhat misleading; I don't see any reason to keep this. Geolodus (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Useras/Les Useres[edit]

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

Nunquam[edit]

It isn't clear why this redirects here, rather than, say, The Revolt of Aphrodite. --woodensuperman 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not just make another redirect for Nunquam (novel).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) previously User:FFS

Ghost (2011 film)[edit]

Delete. Film was not released until January 2012. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as a misleading redirect. Geolodus (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Eurasian Economic UnionEAEU[edit]

Implausible redirect - It consists of the phrase 'Eurasian Economic Union' followed directly by the abbreviation 'EAEU' with no spaces in between. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Palace of Versailles[edit]

redirects to Template:Versailles, which is actually about Versailles (band), a Japanese visual kei metal band.
Note that this redirect was created by the now topic-banned portalspammer @The Transhumanist as the basis of Portal:Palace of Versailles. The portal is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palace of Versailles, where I have explained the sequence of edits and their impact. In summary, this is one of the steps which led to a portal supposedly about the French palace to be filed with content about a Japanese band. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The template is not about the palace. I think the creation of the portal is not really very relevant to the redirect though (if the redirect is deleted but the portal kept then the portal will need editing, but that's not a reason to keep or delete the redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Whether the original template is appropriate, since it could be assumed to be about the palace, is not the issue, but this redirect confuses things. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Repurpose. It seems to me that there may be a case for a navbox relating to the Palace of Versailles, as there are articles for a number of the rooms, etc, etc. See Category:Palace of Versailles for some of the articles that could be included. --woodensuperman 15:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment say what? (Commmenting on the template not the last comment.) Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the full set, over the period April '18 to Feb. '19, of this user's template redirect creations and template moves falls squarely into the "you'll spit out your coffee" category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like topic ban from template space is in order? His Outline project is no better. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PutItToThePeople[edit]

2013's Tropical Storm Yagi[edit]

Implausible redirect. Not a formal written form for tropical cyclones. Tropical Storm Yagi (2013) and Tropical Storm Wukong (2012) already existed. B dash (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose (at least without a better reason to delete). At least one editor has used that form. If the redirects are deleted then any pages linking to them should be fixed (i.e. avoid them becoming redlinks). (Redirect creator) DexDor (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep these don't seem implausible as search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hamburder[edit]

Nothing in the target article explains, or even mentions, the term. PamD 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

P45 misspelled hamburger as hamberder on twitter when he hosted the Clemson football team.[3] It became a meme, similar to covfefe.[4] 53zodiac (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Hamburger as a {{R from misspelling}}. Given that the redirect is a misspelling of a misspelling, it would make sense to point it to the original meaning over the misspelled meaning. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep only Trump would make this mistake. The error made it to an SNL sketch. Anyone searching this specifically will be well served at the target. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This isn't the mistake that Trump made though. That mistake was Hamberder. The redirect being discussed is a different spelling: Hamburder. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it needs to be mentioned in the social media article for it to have a meaningful redirect, otherwise it could be a portmanteau of hamburger and murder, which is something completely different. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Edited article Donald Trump on social media#Satire, archives, and reactions to include reference to SNL "hamburder" gameshow 53zodiac (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • SNL spelled it the same way Trump did, which was "Hamberders", not "Hamburders". -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • A misspelling of a misspelling is simply nitpicking. News websites have used both hamberder and hamburder in articles about P45, and most people who search for "hamburder" on wikipedia would expect to find some info on Trump.[5] [6] [7] Keep. 53zodiac (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix, or delete per nom. This meme got nowhere near as much covfefecoverage as covfefe did. Iffy★Chat -- 13:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trump's hamburders gaffe was notable enough to receive coverage on SNL. 53zodiac (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • — Duplicate vote: 53zodiac (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Delete unlikely typo. Peter James (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Mister Bone Saw[edit]

deletion, this redirect implies offensive phrase about a living person Biographies of living persons Motqen (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: The phrase "Mister Bone Saw" as applied to the article's subject is mentioned and explained in the article with appropriate citations, including one from the New York Times. Dylanexpert (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep a recognized nickname. He is a dictator so I'm not too concerned with the negative nature of the nickname. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Whether the target is a dictator or not is irrelevant. Every subject is entitled to equal treatment under NPOV and (where relevant) BLP. This nickname is ok as a redirect as it is established and verified, any other nicknames for them which are not established and verified would not be ok, regardless of our opinions about the subject as a person. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop following me around and acting like a troll. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stop accusing those who disagree with you of being disruptive and similar. I did not follow you here (it's quite possible I've commented on more RfD discussions than any other user in the history of the project if you know how to calculate the statistic I'd like to know if my guess is correct), and there is nothing inappropriate or even unusual in responding to another editor's comment in a deletion discussion noting that they've misinterpreted a policy/guideline/etc and explaining why. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The title contains an offensive phrase, uses non-neutral terms and violate the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia.(see WP:RNEUTRAL) Motqen (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Striking above vote by nom. We do not cast a duplicate vote when we nominate for deletion. Sam Sailor 07:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nickname is sourced in the target. Sam Sailor 07:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) !vote changed to retarget to anchor, see below. Sam Sailor 07:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sam and Dylanexpert. WP:RNEUTRAL actually permits uses like this - "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section Mohammad bin Salman#Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, where the term is mentioned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
That is an improvement, as long as the section title stays stable. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
You lost me cause I don't know how to do that, but sounds good. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I would support a redirect to the appropriate sentence. Dylanexpert (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Retarget using anchor per User:Sam Sailor UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lambda Omega sorority Norroena[edit]

Created for Research for the Lambda Omega sorority which started as Norroena and which eventually folded into Theta Upsilon. Article on Lambda Omega has been created since which goes into this. Naraht (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Lambda Omega per nom. It's explained at both articles but going immediately to Theta Upsilon would be a bit of a surprise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search term under the current title: (sorority name) + "sorority" + (former club name). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per King of. There is no usage of this specific phrase outside of Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WEAK[edit]

I attempted to retarget this unused shortcut, and created a new one for the current target, but those changes were reverted, apparently for the sole reason that they were not discussed first [8] so here we are. Neither essay is high-impact, but, despite what is implied in the message I received, nothing was harmed because the shortcut had never been used, and I simply think it makes more sense redirected to the WP:STRONG page, and I created WP:WEAKPA as a new, more specific shortcut for the other essay. (note that the previous RFD on this redirect predates the creation of either essay and is therefore not relevant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget as originally proposed: it's hardly an established shortcut when it's unused, and the proposed changes would appear to be both an improvement and sensible. ——SerialNumber54129 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The original configuraiton aids searches (#3), is useful (#5), and is closely related to the word form of the essay (#6). The redirect has been in place to its original essay since July 2017, and points to an essay that has been around just as long. That original essay has been edited by 18 unique editors (I am the original author) and is included on Template:Civility, showing that it has support in the community. Over 800 pages link to the original essay and until yesterday WP:WEAK was its only shortcut. The new proposed target hasn't even been around three months, only has one author, and has links to 14 pages (and it appears that some of those are older than the three months) Such a change is disruptive to Wikipedia and should be avoided. Plus, as this page states: "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."--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's look at those arguments one by one:
  • I can't see how it aids searches since it is unused, there is no reason to belive the new shortcut I made is any less helpful, and in fact more clearly refers to that specifc essay.
  • How many people have edited each essay does not seem the least bit relevant, neither is the relative age of the two essays as all we are talking about here is where the redirect should point.
  • There is nothing disruptive about changing a redirect that isn't linked anywhere, which is what is proposed here, not deletion.
I think that about covers it...Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Response very simple, actually...
  • It aids in searches for editors who remember the shortcut keyword WEAK which is already established. Just because the shortcut link itself is not embedded in other content does not mean that it isn't used or useful--best practice is to avoid the use of redirects if at all possible when editing. Plus the daily pageviews on the essay's talk page show that it gains a good amount of traffic. Plus, the shortcut averages about 10 pageviews per month according to statistics. Certainly not a huge volume, but definitely not "unused" by any stretch.
  • The number of people involved in the essay is extraordinarily relevant. Sure, I was the original author but other editors have found it valuable enough to contribute to the essay--to mold it and shape it into something more driven by consensus; the new essay is nothing more than the contributions of one editor (plus now a grammatical error change from a second). It's not in the Template:Wikipedia essays so it's not really gaining any ground.
  • It's disruptive because the established essay has the history, and users of that essay would have to remember a different search term. For that reason, we don't move shortcuts without first having a discussion. The "apartment" (so to speak) is already occupied.
  • Another point--The new essay is strikingly similar to the shortcuts WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON that redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This essay section contains the exact same concept as the proposed target essay and therefore seems redundant and should probably be deleted or merged. The same ideas are already expressed in another place with established shortcuts. There's no need to change the shortcuts because one editor wrote the same thing in a separate essay. That, too, can be disruptive. I think it may be best to consider deletion of the new proposed destination, or possibly merging the content to the larger and more widely accepted essay.
  • Still another point: checking the history of the proposed essay, we can see that the original author did not think much of this essay during its creation. Comments like "may write more later but this is basically it" and "shortcut to this highly important essay" show a sense of apathy toward its creation. The "weak" references weren't even added until yesterday (after the original author let the essay sit untouched for several months). It doesn't look like there's much enthusiasm at all for this work from its lone author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
One more comment, I do not get a sense of any "bad faith" here -- I believe that the proposed changes are made in good faith, I just believe that they should not be executed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI: you come across as being very condescending, starting with your talk page message to me, right up to this last remark. I'm not usually a fan of pissing contests but for the record I've been an admin for nearly a decade and on the functionaries team since 2010, not some new user who just doesn't know what's going on as you seem to keep implying. So, let's not make this personal, because it isn't, it's a discussion about a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If so, I apologize. I don't think I could be more polite. I made no presumption about any history of your editing, but I must point out that there is no WP:SENIORITY on Wikipedia and the best argument should be used regardless of its source. The points I have presented still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There's no seniority; but experience is a tangible thing. As Beeblebrox is trying to tell you :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
All of these personal comments about experience are variations of WP:ADHOM (arguments to the person), specifically listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggest WP:BLUDGEON is also required reading. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April 10[edit]

Draft:"Trelawny:, Soldiers Hill, Ballarat[edit]

  • Comment/Question: @UnitedStatesian: Forgive me, I'm not sure what the question is, nor what problem we're trying to solve.
If the proposal is to move the current text from Common law#Common law legal systems in the present day to Common law legal systems in the present day, I'd oppose that. The full article needs that list of examples. Duplicating the text means that the two copies will diverge, and each will get only half as much correctness attention as the single copy gets today.
If the proposal is to delete the redirect-only page Common law legal systems in the present day, I don't see immense harm (though there is some harm -- readers find the page, sometimes up to 30 times a day -- seems odd to pull the rug out from under those readers).
My first impulse is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But maybe you see a "broke" that I don't.
At the end of the day, I'm largely indifferent.
BostonBowTie (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope, no moves will happen. All we're doing is proposing to delete the "Common law legal systems in the present day redirect, which is malformed in that it only has one quotation mark. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Now I see the problem! Yes, have at it! BostonBowTie (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Delete Unnecessary (and some malformed) quotation marks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment/Question: @UnitedStatesian: Have you by chance verified if the versions of these redirects without quotation mark(s) exist (for the ones where the redirect's target is not the non-quotation equivalent)? Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • In the handful of cases where the non-quotation equivalent is not the target, it is a mixed bag: some exist, some don't; I am not convinced the non-quotation equivalents are necessarily valid rediirects either in all cases. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Mistakenly made articles that are unlikely links or search constructions. Reywas92Talk 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget Concordia Lutheran Junior College to Concordia University (disambiguation). I've moved the one with the quotes, so the original mistaken redirect can be deleted. The non-quoted version should be kept and retargeted. There were several Concordia Lutheran junior colleges (Ann Arbor, Fort Wayne, Austin, among others) so it's a reasonable redirect for people looking for the history of one of these Lutheran institutions. I have no opinion on the other redirects. schetm (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Touch (Bebe Rexha song)[edit]

Not mentioned on target page, artist's page or discography. Richhoncho (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

/56 Nights[edit]

Delete These redirects with the leading forward slash are obvious errors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Obvious errors as per UnitedStatesian.Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I can only speak for the /Teaterladan, Hedemora. It was created to get around an error in QRpedia that has been present since November. It seems, however, that the bug does only affect all other language versions, not enwp. I have therefore no objections to a deletion on this language version. Vivo (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. None of these appear to have been created for any specific purpose, and none of them seem like valid search terms. Most of them fall under WP:G6 as leftovers from page moves. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Motel Symphony[edit]

No mention at target, the artists page, the two albums released or the tour page. No other WP entries for the term I could find. Richhoncho (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Subject appears to have been a song that was leaked in 2016 but was never made publicly or legally available. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"John"[edit]

I think I've seen redirects-in-quotation-marks discussed before in RFD, and deleted. I came across this one as an ambiguous link to a song, which I replaced by a link to "[[John (Someone's song)|John]]" to one or other of the entries on the DAB page. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Shooting Star Summit[edit]

non-notable video game location not mentioned at the target Druaga2 (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - not mentioned in the target, would suggest retargeting if there were a list of Mario locations or some such, but can't find any reference to it.Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana[edit]

Delete redirect to create the new page for Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana which redirects to Agricultural insurance in India. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is special insurance scheme in agriculture sector and its a big deal and needs a separate article. Rocknstone (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Dunne D.10[edit]

Delete to encourage article creation. D.10 is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have now added it to the target and given a reference. A standalone article is unlikely, as so little is known about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Eclipse Engine[edit]

Two "Eclipse Engine"s exist, one by Digital Eclipse and one by BioWare. I don't think either is more notable than the other, and the redirect should possibly be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 06:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Pick this one to be primary topic redirect and put a hatnote there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a hatnote as this seems to be the primary topic (the only thing that seems to come close is (parts for) engines for the Mitsubishi Eclipse), but if you disagree that there is one then the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation page. There is certainly no case for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Huricane[edit]

Seems like an implausible misspelling/typo. CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Missing a letter is an entirely plausible misspelling, in my opinion. —Hugh (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Huricane" for "Hurricane" is a very plausible misspelling - see as just one example The Irish Times. The redirect got 101 hits in the 30 days prior to this nomination and 1253 last year, again demonstrating its plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Totally plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. NoahTalk 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Conduction block[edit]

  • Delete - conduction block is not exclusive for heart block. It can also refer to block of nerve conduction in other tissues (examples [9] [10]) Coming from the link in Neuromuscular-blocking_drug, current redirection confuses the reader. ycanerol 16:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nerve block - don't see why that wasn't just done in the first place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig could refer to nerve, heart and possibly more. I don't think there's a clear primary target here; would lean towards heart if had to choose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Industrial food[edit]

Somewhat derogatory, odd redirect PrussianOwl (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • We might consider Convenience food, where Processed food redirects, though I don't know if that's really a synonym ("tertiary processed food" is the bolded term in the lede). --BDD (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig. The first hit on google is for a textbook [11] which defines the term as "foods that are mass produced in a factory setting and require no or very little cooking to make them edible. These foods are also packaged which make them highly portable." which closely matches the lead of Convenience food and the examples have a lot of overlap with our article. The rest of the hits on the next few pages are for a mix of processed food, Industrial agriculture and either the "industrial food system" (the food supply chain starting with intensive agriculture and ending in supermarkets, either as processed food or mass-produced fresh foods) or a part of that system - which seems best covered by our Food industry article. Accordingly I think a dab page listing Food industry, Convenience food (via Processed food), Intensive farming (via Industrial agriculture) and Factory farming (maybe with a see also to Agribusiness) would be the best bet. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig as suggested makes sense to me--they are all possible meanings. DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to convenience food as more-or-less synonymous. Anything else is a reach. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree that anything other than convenience food is a reach. While academic definitions of the term are nearly synonymous with convenience food, search results indicate that there is no primary topic for the term across all contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • note I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. If the consensus is to retarget (which per above I disagree with) then this should be moved to Industrial food (disambiguation) and a hatnote added. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Which I strongly disagree with because none of those entries are "industrial food". For example, "food industry" and "industrial food" are nowhere near the same thing. You can't say that something in the "foo industry" is "industrial foo". -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Nice theory, but if you actually look at the search results what you find is that people do mean the (products produced by) the food industry and/or (a specific type of) industrial farming when they talk about "industrial food". Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing links to it; it isn't in use. Let whoever happens to use that phrase in an article and who happens to want it to mean something specific pipe a link to whatever that is. I don't believe a disambiguation is the way to go, as some of the proposed possible meanings in the dab at this moment [12] are definitely too much of a reach. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Lack of links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect, and in this case it's not surprising given it was nominated for deletion less than three hours after it was created. It is however very useful as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō[edit]

Delete. The article at Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō should be a redlink for now. Ngāti Apa (website), the target of this redirect, is not the same iwi as Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō (website). —Hugh (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 9[edit]

See list[edit]

Delete Bot creation. Presumably the source used by the bot had a non-standard value in a field parsed by the bot. Plantdrew (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is the sort of thing that's trivially easy for a human to detect but really quite difficult for a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Three Men in a Boat[edit]

I believe that this redirect should be deleted. The result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat was merge. However, when templates that I have created for similar subject areas have been up for discussion, the result has generally been to merge the content and delete the page. There is obviously a trivial edit history involved as an artifact, but that has not been an issue in similar TFD and CSD outcomes. N. B. Three Men in a Boat (1920 film) is the only article space use of this redirect and it should just be replaced by the target like all other uses have been.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hara (film)[edit]

As far as I can gather, Hara was an early title for Dheera which is a now-shelved film by this director. Given that this abandoned project isn't mentioned at all in the target article, I don't see how this redirect is useful, especially as it has no significant history. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich (Expanded and Updated)[edit]

I declined a WP:R3 speedy on this, as this is the full title of the latest edition of the book, so not "blatantly implausible" per the CSD criteria. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone's ever going to type this complete title, with brackets, into the search box - they'll get as far as the first four words and find the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep the full title is always going to be a plausible redirect, especially as there are very many more ways to find Wikipedia articles than typing the title into a search box that has search suggestions. In this case it's most likely going to be used by copy and pasting or by following a link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Track 3[edit]

Doesn't seem to make sense- I'm sure many albums have tracks number three. TheKaphox T 10:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, Based on A Totally Serious Analysis of Taylor Swift's Genre-Defying 8 Seconds of Static, 'Track 3' the explanation is an iTunes glitch (maybe only affecting Canada?) so it is not implausible. It is however, not useful as there is no mention of this in the article at all. There is also a 2014 short drama by this title (I haven't assessed it for notability), but the most prominent use on en.wp is ISO/IEC 7813#Track 3 but virtually everybody searching for this would be confused to arrive there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete useless as all albums have one Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This was removed from the article recently[13]. If mentioned in the article, there can be a redirect or a disambiguation. Most albums have a track number three, but the disambiguation is for the title "Track 3". We don't delete Second Album, and we don't list every artist's second album there. Peter James (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Scorpion (comics) Carmilla Black[edit]

Butchered disambiguation, no value as a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Rocket Raccoon's[edit]

I believe that possessives for names are typically deleted unless the target is a business. This is a fictional character so the redirect is of no value. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Janice Griffith[edit]

Delete per criterion #10, as "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Furthermore, it is exceedingly unlikely that someone searching for this individual would be looking specifically for this Cane Hill controversy. BLP concerns. 24.185.5.61 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, retarget or create article - Keep per WP:CHEAP, retarget, or create the article. If the article can be created, then it should be created. If there is a better target, then retarget. If not, then keep it where it is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject is mentioned in target article, plausible search term. And as Jax 0677 says, if you do not want the redirect, and feel an article would pass notability criteria, feel free to create one. Or find a better target. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BodyBuilding[edit]

Very implausible search string and inappropriate for linking. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't understand why this is implausible? Redirects exist for far more reasons than just linking. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as the CamelCase is not helpful in this instance for searching, history, or any of the other reasons besides linking that give redirects their utility and in fact is WP:COSTLY. Note this one was a contested speedy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen this capitalization in the wild. The fact that it was created shows that someone found it useful. All in all, a very minor modification, so this one is likely fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I find your argument unconvincing and as you are the Admin who went out of their way to reverse a bunch of other Admin accepts of my tagging of recently created implausable portal redirects, I find your vote to be WP:INVOLVED Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    WP:INVOLVED involves an admin action. Participating in an RFC isn't an admin action, although closing it would be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I have no intention of using my admin tools to close this RFD, especially since I also !voted, which would be an actual violation of WP:INVOLVED. Merely commenting on a matter I have previously used my tools on is okay. As for reversing RHaworth's deletions, while I agree and was planning on accepting most of the G7 requests, my own review of your tags found that many of them were invalid. The G7 authorization by Dreamy Jazz was only for semi-automatically created portals, not the redirects, which they made clear on their talk page when asked to clarify after this whole series of events started. So even if we accept your incorrect statement that everything in portalspace is a portal and ignore Dreamy Jazz's explicit , the redirects still wouldn't fall under the G7 authorization because they weren't semi-automatically created. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Archrivals of the UCF Knights[edit]

Proposing to delete. This redirect is helpful to no one and is most likely a joke referencing the maligned "Civil Conflict", a "rivalry" between UCF and UConn that never really existed Ostealthy (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; seems to be a joke. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Ha, ha, very funny, but not appropriate. I'd suggest a retarget to the ConFLiCT article, but UCF actually does have a rival in South Florida. Best to just delete this. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, interestingly though it dates back to 2006 much earlier than the series.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as creator The reason it dates that far back is that it was a redirect to Connecticut Huskies from UConn Huskies, which just got flipped around at an RM. And as long as they don't let us pagemovers simply delete redirects, we have to move them to another title. I tried a funny title, and I'm glad it made someone laugh. Red Slash 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Connecticut Huskies to fix the history. This is a botched round robin move. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Josephites[edit]

A couple weird portal redirects. Not meantioned at the target, not used in linking and not a very likely search term when you know you are looking for the church name. I'm reasonably familiar with the LDS Church and I've never heard these terms before. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 8[edit]

Multiple redirections to userspace[edit]

Unnecessary redirects, since possibly infringe CNR the relation between pages with different namespaces is not advisable or because contribute neither function in the Wikipedia and no other page redirects her.
They is also a non-existent user who does not belong to this Wikipedia. The other user that redirects it, has been retired permanently from the English Wikipedia per an indefinite block in the Spanish Wikipedia. 45.224.108.254 22:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment redirects from user subpages to mainspace do not violate WP:CNR (see point 9 of arguments for keeping section) and were this in the userspace of an extant user my recommendation would be a strong keep. However, as things are they are neither particuarly useful nor at all harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: These redirects do not contribute any benefit to the project, as they do not have any page that link them (only to the pages of: Redirects of discussion and derivatives). Only they are userpage, that redirected towards the mainspace, whose pages were possibly created by a old user name (mentioned in the redirects titles, which currently does not exist), interpreting the increase of 'ego' of the same, giving it ownership over them. Sorry for my bad English. 45.228.254.166 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is no longer a user with this name. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Vernon(1984)[edit]

The final of three redirects I found today which are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Tropical Storm Vernon (1984), so there is no reason why we should keep this. CycloneYoris talk! 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:G6 should apply to this one as it's "a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title". Doesn't seem useful to me. PC78 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Wilda(1976)[edit]

Another incorrectly spelled redirect created by the same user. No space between name of the storm and the year in which it occurred. Redirect with proper title already exists which is Tropical Storm Wilda (1976), so I see no reason why we should keep this one. CycloneYoris talk! 21:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Wilda(1961)[edit]

Incorrectly spelled redirect. Title has no space between the name of the storm and the year, which is an obvious typo. Another redirect with the proper title already exists which is, Tropical Storm Wilda (1961), so there is no reason to keep this one. CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian Royal[edit]

May be confused with Monarchy of Australia B dash (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Havalimani Airport[edit]

This literally means "Airport Airport" and is not specific to Istanbul. feminist (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no evidence the airport is known by this name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence this or any other airport is actually called this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople Airport[edit]

Ridiculous. Airports aren't a concept at the time when the city was known as "Constantinople". Before anyone argues about the merits of someone wanting to visit a place previously known as Constantinople, I'd note that usage for this redirect is minimal at best. feminist (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Byzantium Airport[edit]

Ridiculous redirect. Airports aren't a concept at the time when the city was known as "Byzantium". feminist (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no evidence the airport is known by this name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Loaded Gun (Cher Lloyd song)[edit]

No mention at target, either album released or on artist's WPpage. Richhoncho (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Driest continent[edit]

This should probably be retargeted to a list of continents or something, because many continents like Africa for example, are also quite dry. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know whether it is a useful redirect, but if kept it should definitely go to Antarctica rather than a list. Many places can be quite dry, but some will be drier than others, and one (unless there's a tie) will be the "driest". CMD (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article does say, with a source, that "Antarctica, on average, is the coldest, driest, and windiest continent". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

British from the European Union[edit]

May be misleading as it doesn't refer to the "exit" or "leave" from the EU B dash (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete My first thought was this would refer to a British person representing the European Union in some capacity, or possibly how one might describe someone from Texas as a Texan from the United States. I certainly wouldn't associate it with Brexit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even know who would search for this. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect title isn't complete or meaningful, so can't be redirected to anything unambiguously correct. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Incomplete and nonsensical redirect. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • one could say the same about Brexit... Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I would be inclined to keep if the redirect was more complete, such as if it had something about the UK leaving or about Brexit specifically. Mgasparin (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Karl Ivanovich May[edit]

Unreasonable redirect (notable person -> semi-notable school named after the person) Zocky | picture popups 13:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm torn between keeping this as a redirect to the section of the article that is most about the person and deleting per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Tina Ballerina[edit]

No longer listed in the characters. Not notable enough. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete, since it is not in the target. While redirects are cheap, it could be confusing to a reader to click on the link and then find nothing about the character.Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ragnar Larsson[edit]

A redirect to a DAB page which includes no-one called Ragnar. (FWIW, there's no-one called Ragnar Larsson with an article in Swedish WP; though there does seem to have been a prewar international footballer; see 1938–39 in Swedish football.) Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The article for Axel Larsson (Swedish wrestler) has this source with the name Ragnar Larsson. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Add the information to Wikipedia if it's notable, otherwise Delete to avoid WP:SURPRISE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While I share JHunterJ's uncertainty about the source's notability, it's also the only source for the article, so if we can determine it's not, that's a clean G8 deletion for the redirect. With the extremely narrow sourcing we have, it does appear the wrestler was known as Ragnar Larsson—for all we know, he wasn't even commonly called Axel Larsson at all! So I'm keeping this "weak" because we're in very marginal territory here. Swedish Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on a wrestler by either name. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Axel Larsson (Swedish wrestler) to Ragnar Larsson per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NATURAL. olympic.org also uses "Ragnar" for the Swede. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    I would support that, and we could add hatnotes between it and the footballer identified by AngusWOOF. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still the input are very split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 7[edit]

List of People whose name is Ichiro[edit]

Unnecessary. We already have Ichiro for non-diacritics purpose. No other redirects starting with "List of people whose name is" exists. Either we mass-create those, or we delete this one. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete since it's also miscapitalized. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit means Brexit does mean Brexit[edit]

I do not believe this redirect should exist. If you believe there is a valid reason for keeping this redirect, please let me know. If you see any redirects here that you think should be deleted, go ahead and nominate them. Mstrojny (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Brexit means Brexit is a plausible search term, but this is not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Thryduulf. Doesn't appear to be a valid search term.Onel5969 TT me 12:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Girl (Justin Bieber song)[edit]

No mention of this song at target or at Justin Bieber discography. Another rumoured track? Richhoncho (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Unreleased 2014 track, so it is a plausible search term but it’s not mentioned at target article.—NØ 09:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Forever Lost (Album)[edit]

No mention of an album of this name on target (there is a song, which also has a redirect). Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Retarget to Forever Lost (album) for obvious reasons.--NØ 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per MaranoFan. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:British Overseas Territories[edit]

Now unnecessary and a surprise. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Overseas Territories Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster/images[edit]

Seems unnecessary, there is no section talking about the images B dash (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Inert munition[edit]

Dummy round describes only one type of "inert munition". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Inert bomb[edit]

The target does not describe an "inert bomb". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Pincushion flower[edit]

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

Portal:Music of Trinidad and Tobago/Related Trinidad and Tobago portals[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: housekeeping that's now taken care of

Chainmail bikini[edit]

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

Destruction Duet[edit]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction Duet it was closed as merge in 2005 though I’m not sure if we should be held to that since none of the 65 minigames are currently mentioned in the article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

April 3[edit]

The Past is a Foreign Country[edit]

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

Captive audience meetings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 12#Captive audience meetings

Atatuerk[edit]

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

Hamburder[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 11#Hamburder

Cliveden Glade[edit]

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

Philippine Bausch[edit]

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

Template:RE[edit]

This is barely used redirect for {{reflist}} (about 136 times, although this is not always used for reflists) compared to {{reflist}}'s 4708565 times. However, I believe it would make a lot more sense to use as a redirect for {{Re}}.

{{Re}} is short for reply, much like you have in emails. And in emails, this is very, very, very often capitalized as RE:... and when people forget that {{RE}} ≠ {{Re}}, then what happens is that the person they intended to notify, doesn't get notified. Non-mainspace use reveal this is not uncommon. I know I made that mistake at least a dozen of times this year alone, before having to go back and fixing my pings.

Henre, I propose we retarget Template:RE to redirect to Template:Reply to (after taking care of existing uses). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I support retargeting (after substing existing uses as appropriate), but note that {{re}} itself is a redirect, so {{RE}} should redirect to {{Reply to}} instead, to avoid the dreaded double redirect. I created this redirect 11 years ago, before pinging was a thing here.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. I used {{Re}} so much I forgot that wasn't the main version of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget The current target simply makes no sense to me. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - This redirect has been in place since 2008 and has probably been replaced thousands of times by {{reflist}}, therefore, the time for changing this redirect without confusion has long passed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retargeting as suggested makes sense to me. The current target {{reflist}} does not. Sam Sailor 09:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

KFMASH[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 12#KFMASH

Mister Bone Saw[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 11#Mister Bone Saw

Greivous Bodyguard[edit]

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

Dark lord of the sith Darth Revan[edit]

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

Darth Revan's Force Ghost[edit]

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

Lumpy's stuffed bantha[edit]

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

Justice Medley[edit]

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

June 18, 1976[edit]

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

Delimar Vera[edit]

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

Lambda Omega sorority Norroena[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 11#Lambda Omega sorority Norroena

Wikipedia:WEAK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 11#Wikipedia:WEAK

Portal:Current events/Canada[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190408191241/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFD

Leave a Reply