Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21ea5dccce7845c

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFDCD)
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:RFD (disambiguation).
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 0 122 122
TfD 1 0 2 3 6
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 22 28 9 59
RfD 0 0 0 35 35
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]

Redirects that have been nominated for discussion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Old discussions

[edit]

After 7 days, nominations that have finished their discussion period are eligible to be closed following the deletion process.

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 after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When to delete a redirect

[edit]

Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:

  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" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Banana". (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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.) The message template {{subst:not mentioned}} may be useful.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

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 copy or merge (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and 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 article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimategate → 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 rumorBarack 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 "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

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

  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP 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.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

July 27

[edit]

SHAMS (satellite)

[edit]

Titles with consecutive apostrophes have been on the title creation blacklist for almost a decade now. These titles cause multiple known technical issues if they are linked, and aren't helpful as redirects either. There is plenty of precedence for such titles to be deleted via previous RfD discussions, so ... delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KIEGWIN

[edit]

Delete – Not mentioned in the target article and no clear relevancy or reason for all-caps. Ike Lek (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet paper in the United States

[edit]

Redirect target doesn't make sense given page history and topic (and the target page doesn't have another appropriate target) Netstars22 (talk to me!) 18:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox square

[edit]

Both {{Infobox street}} and {{Infobox urban feature}} support squares, but this redirects to only one of them. Shouldn't this be integrated? --Joy (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The question is, why are two templates doing the same job? I've nominated them for merging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Tell Me Nothing (Kayne West)

[edit]

Kayne West? Either that's some mysterious hidden feature, or it's a typo. I'll go with the latter. CheeseyHead (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Westbound (song)

[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target page. Was created as some kind of fancruft. Hundreds of other songs are called Westbound. History not worth preserving due to copyright concerns. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather prefer turning this into a disambiguation page. Γ+2 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then those entries should be added to Westbound and this redirect retargeted there as INCOMPDAB. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali (2016 film)

[edit]

Redirect isn't even factually true, the movie was released in 2017 and the only other plausible target (Baahubali: The Beginning) was released in 2015. Tube·of·Light 05:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddie cocktail

[edit]

"Kiddie" is not mentioned in either target. Delete unless an explanation can be made, since it makes no sense to the average reader why a kiddie cocktail and kiddie cocktails would be different. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenog Jones

[edit]

No information about this character at the target. Delete this page which was a two-sentence unsourced stub for a week in 2005. There is mention as unsourced entries in two lists, which can be removed. Jay 06:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (2014 film)

[edit]

Delete This was moved to 2015 as the release date was revealed and actualized on 27 February. Pageviews stats comparison with the target title reveal stark contrasts. Intrisit (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endophallus

[edit]

This term is not restricted to bee drones; for example, see its use for Orthoptera Cremastra (talk · contribs) 04:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quintic curve

[edit]

The target has no information on quintics. (We also don't have quintic surface, only quintic threefold.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (Phrase)

[edit]

Apparently the content which resided at claretclaret (pre-merge) was moved to this poor title for about an hour in 2007. This title is quite ambiguous and unworthy of disambiguation (that the dab modifier is miscapitalized is a much smaller issue). No need to retain this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of drinks that that use the word martini

[edit]

Ungrammatical redirect, containing "that that" in the title in a context where it doesn't make sense. This redirect is marked as {{R from merge}} though. Note that List of drinks that use the word martini is red. I would suggest removing all links to this redirect (which were added by the same user), and then moving without redirect to List of drinks that use the word martini. The history should be kept, but the title should be removed in some form as it clutters searches for "that that". Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

[edit]

Supreme Hockey League seasons

[edit]

Retarget to 2013–14 SHL season and 2014–15 SHL season respectively. SHL is an established name for the Swedish Hockey League, the second-tier Russian league is referred to as VHL, a transliteration of the Russian name. Alternatively, delete the second one as it's incorrect grammatically. Шахматист2025 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's Britney, b****

[edit]

Unnecessary per WP:NOTCENSORED. None of these seem to have particular relevance over the others (open to hearing arguments if I am mistaken; perhaps one is used officially or predominantly in reliable sources). Other variations would also be possible, e.g. It's Britney, b!tch. was one noticed externally. It's Britney, bitchIt's Britney, bitch and 4 other non-censored variations currently exist as reasonable redirects to this target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

California State Assembly members

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These were recently retargeted (and one was created) to wikidata targets (which I reverted). If this is a practice the community wishes to endorse, then I can create a soft redirect template for this sister site; the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTR). Zero soft redirects to wikidata (or 'broken' hard redirects as they would automatically be converted to soft ones by bot) currently exist in the mainspace. That aside, whether the current local target, a retarget, deletion, etc. is appropriate is the question. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more annoying than the useless circularity of a hyperlink from person, X, to a page that automatically redirects to page Y (such as California's 56th State Assembly district) that in turn refers to X by giving a hyperlink back to X (`[[X]]`) to itself. One useful way to break the circularity is by replacing the hardlink with a soft link to an informative wikidata page about X. This is actually useful in several ways: (1) a person following the `[[X]]` link in the hope of finding some information about X will not be grossly disappointed; (2) instead of inducing dizziness in the visitor, it serves as an invitation to create a page for X on wikipedia itself; and perhaps most importantly (3) it establishes a clearly visible link from wikipedia to wikidata that is otherwise difficult to establish with any prominence in the absence of an actual wikipedia page for X. Peak (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A simple way to fix circular redirects is to just unlink them. Wikidata can be linked inline as well, i.e. [[d:Q1078214|teal]] produces 'teal'; I am unsure, however, if relevant guidance recommends doing this for that particular sister project. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An announcement of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman: Slap Flap, and Go!

[edit]

Although there used to be a mention of the title at the target, it no longer exists. A reader would find this redirect more confusing than helpful. Chaos Amber 18:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps this could be retargeted to Rayman#Other and have the game be mentioned there? I'm not sure of what is the standard for whether the game deserves to be listed is. Chaos Amber 19:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:灣

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#胆 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#湾? Also would potentially be in the way in case there was article content to be created on the kanji characters, as the pages were originally used when created. For the latter two, I am also not sure why the creator of the draft decided to move the page into mainspace after having redirected the draftspace page already... 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Draft:灣 per WP:SRED; technically okay—poor title, but no need to spend time on it. Delete the other two in the spirit of WP:G8; they seem to almost be pseudo-titles existing around things already deleted for no good reason (wouldn't go as far as to call it gaming, but rather weird). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos magick

[edit]

To bundle with #Chaos Magick. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 22:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos magick/Temp

[edit]

Unneeded article subpage redirect, previously the title of an unsourced stub article from 2004 (link). Justjourney (talk | contribs) 21:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Magick

[edit]

Not needed. A redirect isn't needed for a misspelling. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 20:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is {{R from misspelling}} for? Anyways, this one should be {{R from alternative spelling}}: it's not a typo, but rather a legitimate spelling variation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magick Furthermore, one of the targets (Chaos Magick (album)) uses that spelling.
Accordingly, we should keep the redirect.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YAAP

[edit]

It was created from a misguided disambiguation page (see two relevant edit summaries side by side here). "YAAP" would have stood for "Yet Another Authentication Protocol" (as seen in the first version), but that page has been a redlink for over 20 years (since 2005); hence this is, in effect, redirecting to nothing. I suggest either deleting it or—if appropriate—creating the article on the Yet Another Authentication Protocol, ideally inside the YAAP page itself, i.e. convert it to an article and have the full name be the redirect instead, which follows the existing practice seen in this prefix page. ～ bytekast [talk • cont • logs] 19:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast (wine)

[edit]

No mention of the wine in the target article (Australia); a United States Google search suggests South Coast AVA (California), which is a wine region. A Google search for Australia does show though that the South Coast of New South Wales does also have wineries. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jerez-Xérès-Sherry y Manzanilla de Sanlúcar de Barrameda

[edit]

Are these the correct official designation or something similar? I cannot quite parse these given that they are not in English. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British fortified wine

[edit]

Perhaps retargeting this to Wine from the United Kingdom#British wine would be appropriate?; unsure if that is equivalent. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Kitty (film)

[edit]

Zero proof that the target is ever referred to as Undercover Kitty. 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okoo

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I first nominated this here for deletion on 9 April as a bundling of TimTims2022-created titles which I deem unnecessary and unneeded, but it was closed as trainwreck and that the titles should be nominated individually! So here it is! On the 9th of a month again! Intrisit (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to France 4, which contains a lot of information about Okoo, or delete per WP:RETURNTORED. What gives me pause with the latter is that the French article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2022, so I'm not certain whether it is notable but I don't speak French well enough to evaluate the sourcing myself. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete? Note that the target listed in the nomination is incorrect, and is a redirect itself. The actual target is France Télévisions, and I notified it of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Retarget to France Télévisions, while it is true that France 4 does contain information about Okoo, I think that it should be kept as a redirect towards the France Télévisions page as Okoo is not only apart of France 4, but also its sister channels France 3 and France 5, as well as its digital platform on france.tv, thus I think it would be best to keep it at the article for the parent company of the channels and the digital platform (which of course is France Télévisions). If the article on the French Wikipedia is able to be translated into English and adopted as a separate article, then the adjustment should be made accordingly, provided, it of course, reaches the standards it needs to reach in sourcing among other standards on Wikipedia. IZ041 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

[edit]

An admittedly messy situation. The church at the target article was affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate for a time, but wasn't at its formation and isn't now. The article states, without citation, that the Moscow Patriarchate set up replacement churches after this one broke from them. I copied some content and retargeted Indonesian Orthodox ChurchIndonesian Orthodox Church to Christianity in Indonesia#The 20th century. Should this also be retargeted there, or is it good enough to have it keep pointing to the only such church we have an article for, even though the label is outdated? BDD (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 05:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bolso

[edit]

Bolso is the Spanish of handbag, better to retarget (or delete if not commonly used) A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 05:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per J947. "Bolso" does appear to be used in Portuguese as a nickname for Bolsonaro, though I find no evidence of this usage in English and thus he couldn't justifiably be the primary topic (though I would include him on the proposed dab, at least in a "See also" section. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wendelin the Weird

[edit]

No information at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was a two-sentence unsourced stub for less than an year in 2005. Delete as not helpful, and the entry at the Wendelin disambig page should be removed as well. Jay 05:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seahawks

[edit]

Out of all the articles with "Seahawks" in their title, the Seattle Seahawks is most definitely the most notable out of all of them. Therefore, I am proposing that "Seahawks" is redirected to the Seattle Seahawks as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

[edit]

Futallaby

[edit]

Part of a series of imageboards that was removed from the article years ago for not being notable. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Minister

[edit]

Currently a redirect to the UK's Minister of State for Trade Policy and Economic Security, with two links: the "Trade Minister redirects here" header on that article, and a reference to the minister of trade of Turkey on a Libya article. Suggest redirecting to the general list of "trade ministers" at commerce minister. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the RM mentioned above has now concluded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall: This might be a good place to discuss What should be listed at the DAB that will be created at the base title, other than this article?; pinging the participants in that requested move to comment here may be helpful. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow Mule was the only participant. I tried pinging the nominator grapesurgeon, but he never responded. 1isall (talk | contribs) 20:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huelva provin\ce

[edit]

It's unclear what the backslash is doing inside a word. There isn't even a special character surrounding it, so this redirect is highly implausible and probably should be deleted. This was created by a page move in 2006, though some details about the move are not clear like how long this title lasted. Note that this is the only page that shows up when searching "provin ce". Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greece Highway 37

[edit]

The redirect should be deleted, because the road number does not exist (either as a motorway or national road) according to my research in National roads in Greece. Minoa (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article (National Roads or Road 39) mentions Road 37—Why was it linked to 39 to begin with? Aza24 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 4#Greek National Road 37: even without the typo argument, there is no evidence that the A37 or EO37 is in use on the Greek road network since 1963.
Side note: I am thinking about the future of other "Greece Highway #" redirects, because (1) it could either refer to a motorway or national road (ambiguity), and (2) it could be a remnant of US-centric article naming (like the recently deleted "Greece Interstate #" redirects). --Minoa (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei People\'s Party

[edit]

Unnecessary to exist alongside redirect with unescaped title. MSUGRA (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible and WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul\'s United Methodist Church (Nyack, New York)

[edit]

Redirect moved (2008), likely redundant and rare (see prior submission about St. Matthew's). MSUGRA (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Matthew\'s Episcopal Church (Barrington, Rhode Island)

[edit]

Redirect moved (2008), likely redundant and rare. MSUGRA (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word \"fuck\"

[edit]

Malformed title, original reason to keep (2007) no longer exists. There are enough other redirect permutations leading to target article. MSUGRA (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First Barons\' War

[edit]

Not used anywhere, though quite old (should have been deleted upon move of original redirect). MSUGRA (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A ch\'im un pinnara, i kangsan ungum e

[edit]

Very unlikely to be linked-to from the outside; title without backslash also exists. MSUGRA (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not likely to be used by external sites HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's tournament – Knockout stage

[edit]

Don't need a standalone article for this. Qby (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds College of Business Management and Technology

[edit]

This redirect only exists because someone created a very basic page for the institution containing its contact details back in 2011, and another editor then redirected it to List of universities in the United Kingdom. But this institution was never a university, so this was not an appropriate redirect, and given that the institution has never had a substantial article and is now defunct it seems inappropriate to redirect to List of colleges in the United Kingdom offering higher education courses or to list this institution there. Therefore, the redirect should be deleted. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkie Twycross

[edit]

No information about this character at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. Delete this unsourced stub that lasted just over a month in 2005.

Later history: The unsourced one sentence was merged per its AfD to Minor Hogwarts teachers, which itself moved to Hogwarts staff to List of Hogwarts staff, which also became a redirect to the current target. In 2008, mention had been removed from the Hogwarts staff list with Wilkie Twycross is not a member of the Hogwarts staff, and he has no involvement in the series at all. Jay 06:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

😒

[edit]

Redirects to amusement but that is the opposite of the literal, official definition of this emoji: unamused face. SHSR T • C 04:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DONOT

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating a second time. Previous closed as no consensus, but my rationale remains. This redirect is ambiguous, because there are so many "Do not" Wikipedia policies, and it only exists in this status quo because it was once redirected to WP:NOT and the double redirect fixer bot "fixed" it. This redirect shouldn't be deleted, but should either be retargeted or become a dab page. SHSR T • C 04:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Added link to the original RfD. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks sir SHSR T • C 04:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation. Most projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by their very nature; the standards are very different from the major ambiguity concerns of the mainspace. Disambiguation is very rarely appropriate for projectspace shortcuts and only in cases of extreme confusion etc. Nothing appears to have changed since the last discussion, which took place less than a year ago. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: But what do you think about a retarget then, if you oppose disambiguation? I seriously doubt that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a good target anyway, because "do not" is an imperative statement, while WWIN is more passive and not imperative. In the last discussion, editors who opposed a dab suggested a retarget to WP:DONT, rather than keeping the current target. SHSR T • C 13:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:DONTWP:DONT is a redirect to Wikipedia:Don't panic; the target would have to be the latter, otherwise it would be a double redirect. Funnily enough—if a dab were created, then WP:DONTWP:DONT & WP:DON'TWP:DON'T would likely be due a retarget there and lose the practical usage. c. 500 pages in the projectspace contain the word 'don't', many of which begin with the word. The same thing can be said of 'do not' with ~80 instances. The current target has been the status quo for since creation (functionally) five years ago. Not greatly swayed by retarget arguments thus far. I suppose that I am rather neutral, because I do not really care; however, I am not particularly pleased that we are discussing this again so soon given that the circumstances are the same as last time and no new solutions have been presented. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Kyu

[edit]

This is an extremely implausible alteration of the Korean-language name "Kim Ku", since both of the two syllables are changed ("Kim" becomes "Kin" and "Ku" becomes "Kyu"), which (if I'm understanding hangul correctly) would correspond to replacing "김구" by "긴규". Searching for this on google produces a random variety of results, many of which are related to Japan (??), which further suggests to me that the term "Kin Kyu" likely doesn't really mean anything. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Kin Kyu" is the Japanese reading of his name. He was well known among the Japanese govt during the colonial period grapesurgeon (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapesurgeon: I've struck most of my nom statement for now, but can you add a sourced mention? Duckmather (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't rly easily find a source; there probably are colonial-era primary sources for it though.
But I'll say, if you speak Japanese, it's pretty clearly the reading of his Hanja name as if it's Kanji. I know it's not WP:BLUESKY because clearly not everyone speaks Japanese, but still grapesurgeon (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Kyu

[edit]

Implausible misspelling; "Ku" and "Kyu" are different syllables in Korean (the first is written "구", the second as "규"). Searching this term on google leads to partial title matches for unrelated people like Yi Kyu-won and many non-notable others. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kalifoni

[edit]

WP:FORRED, Haitian Creole is not a common language in California A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haition Creole is a niche language in California, so it's very unlikely this redirect would help in any plausible way. SHSR T • C 13:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much violence in the Middle East

[edit]

Target does not answer the question, and Wikipedia is not a search engine. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because we are not a search engine. --Minoa (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirects from questions are rare on Wikipedia anyway. SHSR T • C 00:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]

Han Jin Di

[edit]

If you take this person's actual title ("漢景帝") and romanize it using pinyin, you get "Hànjǐngdì". If you remove the accents, capitalize each syllable, and separate each syllable with a space, then you get "Han Jing Di" (emphasis added), making this redirect an implausible misspelling. Additionally, the one potentially-relevant google search result for this term is this 2018 forum post, which supposedly quotes our Wagon fort article, but neither this person nor this misspelling are mentioned at either the current version nor the version of the article that existed back then, so I think the quotes from the post are made up; the other google search results are pretty scattered. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Ying (hanjin)

[edit]

The term "hanjin" is not mentioned in this article (and a preliminary google search I did isn't very enlightening either), making the connection between the disambiguator and the name "Wang Ying" unclear. I suggest deletion unless someone else has an explanation. Duckmather (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper\'s Lonely Hearts Club Band

[edit]

It appears that nothing links to this redirect. Unless a Wikipedia policy encourages these escaped duplicates (i.e. to ensure malformed links reach their target), I think this redirect is a plausible candidate for deletion. MSUGRA (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stay in character

[edit]

Phrase not mentioned in article. Searchers may be looking for a Wikipedia article about "staying in character" in acting, which I do not believe currently exists. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilmington

[edit]

Michael Wilmington is not mentioned in the target of the redirect. I'm not sure this redirect should point to this article or perhaps exist at all. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nambung Station via Cervantes, Western Australia

[edit]

I have no idea what this redirect is supposed to mean, seemingly some sort of route directions? It'd be like if Hollywood via Los Angeles redirected to Los Angeles County or Buckingham Palace via London redirected to City of Westminster. There is no article on a Nambung Station, but there is for the town of Cervantes, Western Australia. Fork99 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and for those unfamiliar with the region, Nambung station cannot refer to a railway station either as there are no railway lines in the Shire of Dandaragan. It might refer to a cattle station and caravan park though, which as I said above, I cannot find any mention of on Wikipedia. Fork99 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn North

[edit]

Most references on Wikipedia to 'Brooklyn North' are about Brooklyn, New York City. I'm not particularly sure what someone searching for this would be looking for but I doubt the Wellington suburb is what most are searching for. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: What did you link? Jay 02:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Teul

[edit]

I would like to request the removal of the redirection of "tul" and "teul" to hyeong because as a separate set of martial art forms, I believe they deserve to have their own page and not be classified under Hyeong. Moreover, I am preparing a page about each form in my sandbox, as well as a page about teul itself, and I believe it would be best that the hyperlink "teul" on these pages (which are direct subsets of teul) would link to a page about teul proper instead of hyeong. The only reason that I could find why there is not a page about teul yet, is because no one has put the efoort into it, but if kata (karate and judo), taegeuk (Taekwon-Do) and hyeong (tang soo do) deserve their own pages, teul (Taekwon-Do) also deserves it. Liamb723 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lifetime Original Movies

[edit]

The nature of this title is ill-informed, making it ripe for listing it here, but I'm of the view that the creator leaned on the "Redirects are cheap" statements to create this knowing full well that it'll never be deleted. I feel guilty not seeing this early enough to tag or request R3 for this, created in late October last year, instead of listing this here so it could be deleted without delay. Intrisit (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor (Harry Potter)

[edit]

No mention of this character at the target. The Trevor given-name page says the character is Neville Longbottom's pet, and the Trevor (Harry Potter) AfD said it was a duplication of content at Neville Longbottom. But there is no information at Neville Longbottom now, or anywhere else on enwiki, so the entry may be removed from Trevor. Delete the redirect, as not useful. Trevor White (actor) has played the character of Harry Potter, however this redirect would not be a suitable title there. Jay 10:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RailwaysArchive/main/1–1999

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

List of non-alcoholic punches

[edit]

Redirect targets a section that does not exist. There is no article for Non-alcoholic punch, and there isn't a page for List of alcoholic punches or even List of punches (though "List of punches" would probably be ambiguous). I couldn't find an appropriate article to redirect to, so I propose deletion. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mock champagne

[edit]

This was an unsourced stub that was converted into a redirect, and its target was moved a few times and the redirect now points to a section that no longer exists. Also, "Mock champagne" is no longer mentioned in any Wikipedia articles. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mónaco

[edit]

This redirect is a leftover from an RM earlier this year. Should probably be retargeted to the primary topic Monaco. 162 etc. (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mónaco is the Spanish and (European) Portuguese name for Monaco, but these don't seem to be especially prominent languages there. French and Italian both use unaccented Monaco. The Monaco article says that the Monégasque spelling is Mu̍negu but per Monarchy of Monaco the Monégasque title of the prince is identical to the Portuguese or Spanish name, príncipe de Mónaco, which seems odd. A brief Google search suggests Mu̍negu is correct. Is there any evidence of 'special affinity' with Spanish or Portuguese, or any other language that spells the country's name with an acute accent like this? I guess if they use Spanish (or Portuguese) to refer to that monarch, that counts, even if the language is otherwise not widely used in Monaco. Perhaps some variety of Monégasque or a related language? If not, this is not an appropriate WP:FORRED redirect. Juan Mónaco is the only Mónaco listed at Monaco (disambiguation) but we also have the article Mónaco Aerodrome. I have to imagine the Spanish Mónaco spelling is a common error for the Bad Bunny song, too. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The song is in Spanish, and neither Spanish nor Portuguese is a common language in Monaco. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the aforementioned RM, the accented "Mónaco" is not typically used to refer to the song, despite its lyrics being in the Spanish language. Should we just delete Mónaco? 162 etc. (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we should retarget to Juan Mónaco if the airport is PTM, or Monaco (disambiguation) otherwise. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've bold moved the tennis player to Juan Monaco. There is no evidence of this accented spelling in English-language sources. His own blue check Insta also uses "Monaco"; see WP:SPNC. 162 etc. (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Mónaco Aerodrome in no way meets WP:GNG and should likely be WP:BLARed to List of airports in Chile. 162 etc. (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mónaco Aerodrome. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Forever

[edit]

Redirect targets a section that does not exist. In addition, a Wikipedia search for "Lillian Forever" only shows a partial title match for Irene and Lillian Forever located at Sonya Biddle, and Google search for "Lillian Forever" does not show anything related to cocktails, so I suggest deletion. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poof juice

[edit]

Quite likely past the line of acceptability (see poof), especially without a referenced mention. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch beer

[edit]

Likely past the line of acceptability, especially without a referenced mention. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Girl drink

[edit]

Many alcoholic drinks are associated with women in some context or another. Neither of these is mentioned at the target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague/ambiguous per nom. These are not as offensive as the other two; the problem here is that these terms are incredibly non-specific. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka Kick

[edit]

Formerly an article only referenced to Instagram and an official website. Found some images, but not much about the company that makes them. We have a few mentions in articles about the brand sponsoring various things (generally sports) in the early 2000s. Unmentioned at the target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3sum malt beverage

[edit]

Former redirect to 3sum3sum per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3sum, which itself now redirects to 3SUM. The company that made these caffeinated malt beverages (similar to a Four Loko) seems to be defunct. Unmentioned at the current target. There is a brief mention in an in-line list at Caffeinated alcoholic drink#United States. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The passing mention at Caffeinated alcoholic drink#United States provides virtually no information about the product other than confirming that it once existed. It doesn't appear this brand was particularly noteworthy so there is not reason to insert a description into the current target. The sole link at Tilt (drink) can be removed. Unlike 3sum3sum, there is no article history under this redirect, so no concern about deleting this here. This would obviously not be a plausible redirect to 3SUM. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of SK Slovan Bratislava players in the Czechoslovakian or Slovakian national team

[edit]

There's no way anyone would use such a long name to search, with outdated demonyms. FromCzech (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to wikidata

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

All of these were created within the past ~24 hours. Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles states: Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) as to mentioning the Q-number. The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTR). Zero soft redirects to wikidata (or 'broken' hard redirects as they would automatically be converted to soft ones by bot) currently exist in the mainspace. A soft redirect template for this sister site could be created; however, this would seemingly be against longstanding consensus. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 17#California State Assembly members (pinging Tavix, the only participant besides the creator, at the related discussion).

@Peak: Please stop creating these until the, now two, open discussions conclude (which will either validate or condemn this type of redirect). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An announcement of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Do not soft redirect to Wikidata. Same reasoning as my comment at the other open RFD. The Wikidata pages contain virtually no information about these politicians and what information they do contain could be covered as a list entry or in a table in an article about their district or about the state house generally. As I said in the other discussion: When we approve Wiktionary redirects here, there is typically a well-demonstrated need and a detailed entry that provides valuable information that is not found on Wikipedia and cannot be readily incorporated into an existing article. That is not the case with these Wikidata pages. Making readers do two clicks to land on a page on an unfamiliar website that just lists the name, party affiliation, and district seems rather unhelpful and needlessly convoluted. I agree that User:Peak should stop creating redirects to Wikidata until these discussions have concluded. If broader consensus is needed following these discussion, an RFC or some other venue can be considered. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "Delete all" which suggests you may not have understood that most of these pages were previously circular redirects. The circular redirects take the following form: "PersonX" page redirects to "Some page with a link to PersonX", so clicking on the link to PersonX on the latter page just results in jiggling.
    If someone on the page with the link to PersonX wants additional information about PersonX, then IF there is a wikipedia page for personX, then it should be a stub (if the person is notable), but creating a decent stub is a lot of work, so as an interim measure, a soft-link to an informative wikidata item (which should have references) is both somewhat helpful, and an invitation to fill in the stub. Also, what if the person is only questionably notable? Should the link to PersonX be removed?
    Another important consideration is that untethered wikidata items are an invitation for chaos in the form of multiple wikidata pages for the same individual. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how best to help prevent this. One option which would in principle be tenable (having a link from a wikidata page to a non-existent wikipedia page) is apparently frowned upon.
    Please also note that some of the redirects were simply erroneous. Since someone went to the trouble of creating the redirect, I didn't think it was proper simply to delete it, since that precludes
    discussion (i.e. on the Talk page).
    If anyone has suggestions about how to handle these issues (circularity, non-notable persons, tethering, erroneous redirects), I'd be glad to hear them. Peak (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peak: Circular redirects may be remedied by simply unlinking them.
    That aside, see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles; linking to wikidata is against longstanding community consensus. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that having 'multiple wikidata pages for the same individual' is more of a wikidata issue than a local (i.e. English wikipedia) one for us. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all since we have no articles for these subjects locally, per WP:REDLINK, and since none of these are dictionary words or non-article titles which have information on the "meta:" project. (The only type of cross-project redirects that seem to exist are for Wiktionary project and the base Wikimedia project.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: There is a limited selection to other sister sites. See WP:SSRT and follow the categories. The existence of those, however, does not in and of itself justify the creation of one for wikidata (which would appear to be against the established consensus in my second sentence of the nomination). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: I figured there were more, but those few were the ones that came to my mind in the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Steel1943. * Pppery * in solidarity 17:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Mehta

[edit]

There is also Vikram Bhagvandas Mehta. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

[edit]

List of bad video game

[edit]

Unlikely grammatical errors (correct versions exist); created per request but shouldn't have been. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. List of bad video games, List of worst video games are enough, we don't need random Engrish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"EntrezGene = 8821"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Lumania

[edit]

The Jane Roberts article doesn't mention the term Lumania at all. I believe it's the fictional homeland of her Seth character, but I don't know if there's any more information available. I think an appropriate solution would be a disambiguation page with an explanation for the Jane Roberts connection as well as a link to the novelty band Barnes & Barnes, whose fictional origin is the land of Lumania and who released music on the "Lumania Records" label. Minterpunct (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it remains a redirect, I think Barnes & Barnes would be the more relevant target. Also, the person who placed the redirect, User:Moreschi, has been inactive for years, so I'm not sure who (if anyone) I should ping about this. Minterpunct (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Isotope

[edit]

{Isotope} was moved to {Isotope sequence} in 2023. (This function never should been created as simply {Isotope}. It won't come back here.) {Isotope} is now disused (0 transclusions; only 1 link from User:). It's potentially useful for some other use. A876 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apple slate

[edit]

I suggest retarget to iPad. Before the iPad was first announced, rumors speculated that it would be called iSlate. I seriously doubt any other Apple products would be colloquially called "Apple slate" at this point; this redirect is unambiguous. SHSR T • C 19:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo/Do nothing. "Slate" generally refers to the form factor of a phone or tablet (see slate phone), and Apple having many different devices of the same or similar form factors justifies a target to the general products page. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 23:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo? Do nothing? I don't think that's a proper label; I think you meant to label it as "keep". SHSR T • C 04:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Older sources[9][10] do confirm this was an early/propose name for the iPad. More current shopping sites refer to the 'slate' finish on some iPhones and Apple Watches but these don't appear to actually be called "Apple Slate". Here is a more recent article that seems to use "slate" synonymously with tablet, of which Apple iPad is an example. The most likely referent for this would seem to be iPad, and that seems more helpful than sending people to a list of all their products where the word "slate" does not appear. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zote the Mighty

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

per the previous rfd consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no change since previous RfD. मल्ल (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, this was initially a redirect to Hollow Knight (franchise) shortly before that article got merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype group algebra

[edit]
I think the concepts make sense within the theory of stereotype spaces and stereotype spaces are mentioned in Reflexive_space#Other_types_of_reflexivity. So maybe that’s a better target. —- Taku (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in examples in three other articles, but not explained at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest video games ever made

[edit]

The list in question just lists that appear on various "best of" lists. While these lists have their merits, linking "Greatest video games ever made". As discussed on the talk page of the re-directed, the articles in itself note that the "best of list" should not be considered a end-all or be-all of qualified greats. I believe presuming that the list of appearing on a "best of" list an x number of times is not inline with a neutral point of view. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect seems plausible to me. SHSR T • C 19:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing the problem here; this is a standard redirect. For example, Worst games ever made redirects to List of video games notable for negative reception, while Greatest films ever made redirects to List of films voted the best, and Worst films ever goes to Lists of films considered the worst. The redirect already brings users to the more precise title. Phediuk (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is with this, and the others, it that it implies some agreed upon consensus of "the best games". Like the others, the issue is that there is no way to categorize how one film or game, or any work is "the best". And the arbitrary ways the others are included are vague. Its not whether its plausible, its more that its not an accurate description of the content of these pages. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seems like a standard redirect to me; listing video games "among the best" is just another way of saying they're the "greatest video games ever made" (according to certain lists, at least). Understandable concern if this was the name of the article, but it seems like a suitable redirect. – Rhain ☔ he
him 21:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has a point about the framing of the article, but a redirect of one concept to another does not mean both concepts have to be semantically identical. The page title and content, whilst needing work, is trying on some level to frame itself not as a "greatest games of all time" list; the redirect is merely guiding the reader to the relevant source of information on the topic. VRXCES (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the target should be what the reader is looking for, and the search term does not seem implausible. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for everyone saying this is a plausible re-direct, could they explain that it would be more or less appropriate to link to, lets say Game canon instead for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Game canon is a list of ten games that five people put together two decades ago—for preservation. The article itself doesn't even mention the words "greatest” or "best". If we're considering retargeting, that's not a great destination, in my opinion. – Rhain ☔ he
him 09:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the other 'keepers' before me. If the target article needs work, that's a separate question, but this is the closest thing we've got to "Greatest video games ever made" and is more than close enough to be a reasonable place to send readers. Game canon describes a short list of seminal games identified by the United States Library of Congress. From the description in the article, it's not even clear that the curators of the game canon considered these the "greatest" video games so much and titles that represent important developments in the medium. Pointing there would seem to suggest (1) that the list definition is different from what is described in the article and (2) that Wikipedia, or reliable sources generally, agree that the game canon got it right. The current target is a far more comprehensive list of titles that have appeared on multiple "best of" lists. This is a much better match for "greatest video games ever made". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that there are serious issues with the List of video games listed among the best page, and it's hard to comment on whether or not redirects are appropriate while those are unresolved. It really depends on what happens to that page in the future. The current structure receives too much criticism to be stable, long term, in my opinion. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in the United States

[edit]

There are various possible targets here, all of which have some flaw. Democracy indices is mostly about other countries. History of direct democracy in the United States is a history page. Democratic backsliding in the United States focuses specifically on the flaws. Elections in the United States ignores that democracy is more expansive than just voting. Politics of the United States, on the other hand, may be too broad.

Whatever we decide here, American democracy should probably be tagged with {{R avoided double redirect}} and pointed to the same destination. Sdkb talk 16:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orelha

[edit]

portuguese for "ear". surprisingly, the dog is not the primary topic for the term on its own consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing else on enwiki is simply called Orelha or an orelha. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine that is harmful and ineffective

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Different target than at its last RFD but similar concerns over WP:NPOV and ambiguity remain. YuniToumei (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous RfD. Too ambiguous to be useful. मल्ल (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:WikiMagypsy

[edit]

wasn't a draft. what the hell would a wikimagypsy be lmao consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading through the article (and also through the creators' user page), i see a reference to "Magypsy" (probably one of the characters in the game). That alone already redirects to that article and I assume that this could fall under WP:G2 speedy delete especially given that this wasn't a draft in the first place so this redirect could have been a test. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 14:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
for context, the magypsies (aeolia, doria, lydia, mixolydia, phyrgia, ionia, and locria) are a group/species of characters who protect the needles the plot is all about until someone worthy manages to pull them. they disappear when their corresponding needles are pulled, but live eternal lives until then. almost central antagonist fassad is also implied to be locria after turning to simultaneously more and less central antagonist porky for unknown but very easily assumed reasons (porky likes mind control and brainwashing, the freak)
i'm actually a little surprised that they're mentioned in such little detail in the target and across sources (particularly locria and doria), because, for lack of a better way to describe them, beings who don't conform to traditional gender norms or exist within a conventional gender binary seem like the kind of thing more sources would be willing to pick up on. this isn't to say that i found nothing, just less than i expected
...none of this explanation is relevant to this redirect, by the way, and i'm still not sure what a wikimagypsy would be aside from "an admin who is also nb" consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Belize English

[edit]

Apologies, these redirects should have been nominated for deletion with the now deleted set of templates at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 6#Template:Use Belizean English and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 6#Template:Use Caribbean English but I missed them out.

As with those templates, this redirect and its associates listed here make no sense, contravening WP:R#DELETE. It redirects to {{English ties}}, but cannot be used in the same way. An article tagged 'Use Belize English|United States' is actually an instruction to use American English, not Belizean English. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and prior RFDs for similar template redirects with exactly the same problems. These are nonsensical and seem unlikely to be used. If someone did try to use these, I imagine they would be confused or disappointed by the output. Side, note {{English ties|Belize}} is apparently not a valid input. I seem to recall that a bunch of these were merged or something. Regardless, that is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morgan (writer)

[edit]

This redirects to a screenwriter of borderline notability; there is also a proper writer of also borderline notability covered in https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/morgan_chris . This may need to be retargeted to the disambig for the name, with the SF writer/critic added there (he is not mentioend there right now, I think) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2026 Asian Games

[edit]

Per WP:REDLINKS and WP:RETURNTORED. Too early for these and they can be created closer to the games when more information is available. Also previously warned about redirecting pages. Qby (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE

[edit]

Should be (re-)dabified, IMO. My attempt to dabify the page was contested by Voorts due to links to this shortcut, so I reverted it back to what I think is incorrectly targeted. However, the shortcut has been infrequently used, IMO. Twenty-six pages linking to this shortcut? How is this frequent? Furthermore, as I discovered, the essay "Wikipedia is not Google" was deleted per MFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... Just now checked the history log. As it turns out, the shortcut was originally intended for the now-deleted essay back in 2018. Then it was re-created as some different target. I think Voorts was incorrect that the dabifying would break the links. Actually, the shortcut link was already broken when the essay was deleted in 2021. George Ho (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify, I guess. Multiple pages/sections of pages in WP: space get at different aspects of "Wikipedia is not Google". I agree with the nom that the amount of links is not so great and, given the history, many of the links are in a sense broken, anyway. To the extent there is any lingering concern about broken links, a dab page at least provides readers with multiple options to choose from rather than falsely indicating that the old link they clicked on was meant to refer to one specific topic or another. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Search engine test (aka WP:GOOGLETEST) could be included, perhaps under 'See also', if not in the main list. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Payback (company)

[edit]

Requesting the deletion of this unnecessary redirect by an editor who I presume to want to rack up 500 edits for XC editing. Intrisit (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Iberia and Nickelodeon Spain and Portugal

[edit]

The page history of the first redirect strands across the rest that also target this page. A Bluesky account revealed that Nickelodeon in Portugal and Spain (collectively the Iberian peninsula or Iberia) was split into two, with the feed for Portugal made defunct and transitioned since 29 January this year to the Nickelodeon Global Unlimited feed. This was made to the public via the "NickAlive!" Blogger blog. In light of the renaming, these redirects may be misleading as it may direct the reader/viwer to the wrong place. Intrisit (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article explains the history of the channel that included Portugal as well as the split, so someone that may have that confusion would be helped by reading the article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual operating system

[edit]

What is the correct target for these? 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's question remains unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be pointing to different places, and I think "virtual operating system" (in the singular, at least) usually refers to a single virtual machine. Retarget Virtual OS to Virtual machine as {{R avoided double redirect}} of Virtual operating system. Anywaydun (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise Midgen

[edit]

No information about this character at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. This was an unsourced stub for less than an year in 2005. Delete as not helpful, and the entry at the Eloise disambig page should be removed as well. Jay 04:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage portion

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Molestation

[edit]

Not sure if these should target Sexual abuse or Sexual assault, given the sentence in Sexual abuse: "Molestation refers to an instance of sexual assault...". Steel1943 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target all to Sexual abuse for now. My assessment is entirely based on the present state of the two articles. The terminology is prominently defined in the lead whereas any form of molest appears only once at Sexual assault. Both articles are probably in need of review to ensure consistency. If the molestation content is moved, these can be retargeted as a matter of editorial discretion or brought back to RFD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To rape and in pregnate

[edit]

Seems like an implausible phrase to lead to the target, especially given the misspelling of "impregnate" as "in pregnate". Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LZ4m

[edit]

A modified version of the compression algorithm apparently introduced in 2017 (see [11]). It is not described anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(creator) Yup, it seems it didn't become notable. Widefox; talk 18:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AMGTV

[edit]

Delete. The redirect is at the least incorrectly targeted, as the subject is not a property owned by Byron Allen's company at all. It's confusing unrelated properties. The old text from before redirect shows it as a syndication service to distribute programs to low-powered stations. But it also claims it's owned by Access Media Group, another unrelated (and Canadian) company that itself no longer exists.

So that's two unrelated improper targets. From what I can gather, the syndication service never actually launched and there's no inability to whatsoever. The redirect should just be deleted outright, and if it turns out that there really was an operating company that is mutable enough for an article, it can be recreated.

Oh, should probably note that the original article was deleted after an AFD nomination (albeit one that had no comments beyond the nom, so effectively an expired PROD) and shouldn't have been made an article again anyway. There's no reason for this redirect to exist, let alone point at the complete wrong article. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the user, Nathannah, who handled the WP:SOFTDELETE for the AMGTV article as mandated by the participation-less AfD discussion made the wrong decision in replacing the content with a re-direct to Allen Media Group, which has no connection/involvement/etc. whatsoever with AMGTV. My guess is that Nathannah confused Allen Media Group with AMGTV.
Also, in another discussion more related to the CW, I pointed out to oknazevad that the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based Access Media Group (website: http://www.amgtv.com) that owns & operates AMGTV (website for AMGTV: http://www.amgtv.tv/) isn't the same as the Edmonton, Alberta, Canada-based Access Media Group.
So, again, I agree with oknazevad that the article that existed before Nathannah's actions should be dealt with in accordance to the "soft delete" instructions as per Wikipedia's SOFTDELETE policy, as far as deleting the article, but making it easy to restore it should a request be made at WP:REFUND. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no article for the Colorado based company actually behind it, correct? (Not that I see, anyway). If we did there would be a valid argument to redirect to that, but lacking one I agree with delete. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing evidence that the supposed network is owned by the Colorado Springs company (which basically provides production services for commercial shoots, hardly big enough to own a network). That needs some citations at the least. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after doing some research, it almost sounds like the editor (Musimax) that created the AMGTV article back in 2008 was possibly doing so based on some assumptions, because after looking up information about the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based Access Media Group, there's no mention of AMGTV on the website for AMG, and AMGTV's website doesn't say anything about AMG. And, it sounds like the only entity connected to/associated with AMGTV is someone by the name of "Terry Elaqua".
So, from the looks of it, at this point, I'd actually get in line with the statement that, unless there's any information about AMGTV from an entity other than the supposed network itself, there shouldn't even be an article called "AMGTV", as it doesn't really sound notable at all. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain There was no ill will with creating this redirect after the soft deletion was carried out; the AMG TV article itself was describing an entity that never met WP:N, where no sources were ever added outside of IP accounts that had a conflict of interest to just update the programming list, which itself has been programmed as a regular American independent station with national network distribution, as AMG rarely has ever originated programming itself and instead purchases it from syndication and distributes their network to stations that can't afford to program on their own (along with the long-deleted list of stations that existed to make this article larger than it really was). There have been more than two and a half years to restore a properly-sourced article for that network and it hasn't been done despite my expectation that it might be contested, the network has a placeholder website with little programming information beyond mentioning a vague movie package it may have had (which is likely merely public domain films that happened to be owned by major studios at one time), very little press or any true social media presence outside of its programming providers mentioning their additional distribution on their network, which in the FAST/YouTube era is just another place to park a syndicated show. It's not our job to hope that maybe one day an article does clinch GNG, the soft deletion was performed, I saw the article was redlinked in a period where equivlent minor networks were regularly discussed and deleted to remove chaff, and the Allen Media Group's abbreviated corporate name connects to an entity that does pass N/GNG as a plausible redirect for someone differentiating between their television and film divisions. Outside of retaining that, I'm otherwise completely neutral on the fate of this redirect, but if you want to go through the REFUND process, that also comes with the responsibility to build an article that meets our guidelines and I just don't feel AMG TV has ever met any of them outside of list mention where appropriate, and won't comment further elsewhere, as I've said what I've needed to where it needs to be. Nathannah • 📮 20:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that, as I tried to point out to you in a message I left for you recently, and even @Bumm13: made note of in an edit summary (for this revision:"AMGTV is also in no way related to Allen Media Group"), for the AMGTV article, Allen Media Group has no connection/involvement/etc. whatsoever with AMGTV, so your argument of a "plausible redirect" as it relates to WP:POFR wouldn't apply *or* make sense.
    And, this has *nothing* to do with the WP:REFUND process, but about you (apparently according to myself & two other editors) utilizing the wrong execution for the WP:SOFTDELETE mandate for the AMGTV article resulting from that participation-less AfD discussion about the AMGTV article.

    Frankly, I'm currently of the thought process that the AMGTV article be *temporarily* restored, and then someone make a request at the appropriate request section here on Wikipedia for some other editor uninvolved with the AfD nomination for the AMGTV article to then apply the *correct* execution for the SOFTDELETE mandate, so that this situation can finally be resolve appropriately, and hopefully even quickly. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I haven't given thought about this article since I saw it redlinked in 2024, saw the AfD result and redirected this to somewhere plausible just so it went somewhere since again I emphasize we did a major cull of minor network article with few sources at that time on AfD, so it was just another gnome edit of thousands I've performed. It's a low-interest network that never had a proper article and never met N/GNG (and had COI editing several times), and in two and a half years nobody else brought a new version of the article back except to now restore a version of it which still doesn't address proper sourcing and is now out of date by that long and filled with shows that neither have articles here and aren't even broadcast any longer. Again, no ill will intended and whatever consensus decides, it'll be fully respected and this was 100% done in good faith. This is solely about the redirect, I've voted, and again, if REFUND is done, so be it. I apologize if I made the wrong call here, but lesson learned, we all err and learn from things, let's find something else to edit. Nathannah • 📮 23:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This redirect never should have been created. This should have been soft deleted per the stated close of the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMGTV. I don't fully understand why Nathannah instead blanked and redirected it, but they've acknowledged that it was the wrong call. Now in the interim, an editor has attempted to restore the original article. Since WP:REFUND would have been an option if the AFD close had been followed, the obvious interpretation of the actions of the editor who has repeatedly tried to restore this article is that they would have requested undeletion. So one option is to honor that by restoring the draft, which can of course be sent to AFD. I generally think we should avoid restoring just to send something to AFD, but this is an unusual set of circumstances. My hesitation with !voting to restore and send to AFD is that I am not all that familiar with the undeletion ("REFUND") process, and I don't know if this undeletion request is likely to have been granted there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding, the editor (Bumm13) who tried to repeatedly restore the article did so because of what looks to be Nathannah's faulty execution of the SOFTDELETE process as a result of the AfD nomination for the AMGTV article.
    Now, of course, I don't agree with how Bumm13 went about trying to fix Nathannah's faulty execution; rather, I believe a discussion like this (re-direct for discussion) should have happened a lot sooner than it did. But, then again, if Nathannah had followed the SOFTDELETE process correctly, then we wouldn't have even gotten to this point in the overall situation.
    So, from my perspective, the correct solution here would be for, at this point, an editor uninvolved in this entire situation to go through & correctly follow the SOFTDELETE process for the AMGTV article, as far as deleting it, but in a way so that, should a request be made in the future, the article can be quickly restored (though I don't see any such restore request ever happening). ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding, the editor (Bumm13) who tried to repeatedly restore the article did so because of what looks to be Nathannah's faulty execution of the SOFTDELETE process as a result of the AfD nomination for the AMGTV article. […] So […] the correct solution here would be for, at this point, an editor uninvolved in this entire situation to go through & correctly follow the SOFTDELETE process […] in a way so that, should a request be made in the future, the article can be quickly restored … I'm with you most of the way @ClarkKentWannabe but you lose me at the end. If the correct soft deletion procedure had been followed then Bumm13 would have had the option to request undeletion ("REFUND"). Per WP:BLAR If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for redirection at Articles for deletion. We all agree that the article should not have been BLAR'd, but it was, so restore and send to AFD is the appropriate action per that guidance. And had the correct procedure been followed, Bumm13 would have had other options available. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But, Bumm13's problem, much like mine & oknazevad's, is NOT with the AMGTV article being deleted (so, REFUND doesn't apply here, just to completely count out that aspect of this discussion), but with how the SOFTDELETE process for the AMGTV article was handled by Nathannah (in fact, according to the SOFTDELETE policy, and I quote: A soft deletion may result from a discussion that receives minimal participation. As a result of this closure, the article is deleted, but it can be restored for any reason on request at "Requests for undeletion"). Now, nowhere in the documentation for SOFTDELETE is it ever mentioned about replacing an article targeted for SOFTDELETE with a re-direct to another article, especially when the article re-directed to has NO connection with the article targeted for SOFTDELETE. So, to completely end one part of this whole discussion: the dispute concerning the AMGTV article's AfD & subsequent SOFTDELETE result is nothing to do with believing that the article in question should exist; the dispute is with how the SOFTDELETE result for the article in question was handled by a particular editor (even though said editor has since apologized).
    And, I don't appreciate you putting words into someone's mouth who never uttered those words to begin with. So, from here on out, I would appreciate you judging someone based on what they've said, not by what you think they could or would do.
    The problem here is that there's no documentation for how to dispute when it's believed that an editor has mishandled the SOFTDELETE process for an article.
    So, after doing some research & consulting with an AI chatbot (making sure the AI chatbot only gives information based on what Wikipedia actually states), it sounds like the most appropriate solution for the situation, at this point, is to revert the re-direct placed in the AMGTV article, restoring the article's content to the immediate pre-redirect revision, as there was NO community consensus gained that supported a redirect to an unrelated topic. Then, the AMGTV article can be tagged with a SOFTDELETE request, after which an uninvolved editor, whenever they have the time, can proceed with the article's SOFTDELETE as documented in the policy for it.
    In conclusion, depending on how many here support reverting the AMGTV article to its immediate pre-redirect revision (in order to revert the un-athorized re-direct), I will gladly handle the responsibility for said reversion, and then tagging the article so that the SOFTDELETE process can actually be correctly fulfilled this time.
    I await a response... ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! I was totally unprepared for such a heated reply. I'm trying to reason through an unusual situation by sharing my thinking, which is surely flawed and incomplete, and by engaging with others. That includes trying to think through counterfactuals. Labelling that putting words into someone's mouth is quite strong. Again, I'll note that I agreed with much of your reasoning but was hesitant about certain aspects of it leading to your conclusion, again perhaps because of my own flawed thinking, so I sought further discussion. I have no interest in participating in a discussion where my contributions are responded to in such a manner. Good grief. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies.
    My response was based on my interpretation of what you wrote. So, if it seems that my response came off as rather aggressive, then I am sorry; that was not my intent, as from my perspective, it seemed like you were attempting what seemed to be like rather inappropriate behavior. It just seemed like that you were inferring that Bumm13 had other reasons for doing what they're doing (my point of view was that, as long as you're paying attention to Bumm13, you can see no such thing is happening); that's why I spoke up and suggested that you judge someone based on what they said & do, no on what could possible happen.
    As it turns out, I may be neurodivergent (I haven't been able to see a medical professional, so such diagnosis is more based off what I've researched about how I am), so that could likely influence how I interpret things.
    So, again, my apologies. From here on out, I will keep my interpretation of peoples' actions to myself, so that other editors don't feel threatened when attempting to get involved in discussions on here. I honestly was only trying to help... ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I accept your apology. I believe you've misread and misinterpreted parts of what I've said, but I think it's best to move on rather than re-explain myself. I appreciate the bulk of your contributions here, they have helped inform my thinking. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy @Liz: Any thoughts on what the proper next steps to address the SOFTDELETE and REFUND concerns with this situation should be? Outside of Nathannah's creation of the redirect at the unrelated target, Bumm13 restored the article's history in a manner which circumvented the REFUND process, was subsequently reverted, with Nathannah's redirect restored, and here we are now. Cheers. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is, as far as myself, Bumm13, & oknazevad are concerned, the only problem that exists is with Nathannah's execution of the SOFTDELETE process after the AfD nomination for the AMGTV article ended the way it did. As far as I can tell, no one's talking about going through the REFUND process for the article at all. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. Delete or restore and soft-delete the article. The redirect to this target is inappropriate and was created against consensus; it should not be retained. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Holocaust

[edit]

Apart from one reference cited, the target does not characterise anything as a genocide. The list of genocides has no relevant entries either. There is also a section Mass killings under communist states#North Korea, which is incredibly brief and generally refers to other articles such as the current target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom grapesurgeon (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Junosangleave a message 18:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Carina railway station

[edit]

Delete. Railway stations get enough coverage that they tend to be notable (WP:REDDEAL), and if this one isn't, its name still shouldn't be redirecting to a locality that doesn't mention railways or trains at all. Nyttend (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Schtick coma

[edit]

No mention on the English Wikipedia 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddly muffin

[edit]

No mention on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tilkiköy

[edit]

Looked for any confirmation anywhere that this was a former name for the village like the creator says, and everything I've found contradicts that statement. I could be missing something in another language (probably either Greek or Turkish if so) but I don't think this is real as of right now. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please check the map “Great Britain War Office haritaları 1: 250.000, 1901-1920” and sources from Thrakika folklore studieshttps://www.he.duth.gr/el/page/periodiko-thrakika. Additionally there is the official website of the Community of Alepochori https://alepohorievrosthraki.blogspot.com/2014/05/blog-post_3.html?m=1 (I know it’s a blogspot but it’s an official source of the village folk). It’s also mentioned in the full list of villages the Evros prefecture https://pameevro.gr/palia-onomata-xorion-evrou/ and its mentioned in the renaming program of 1921. KoDOfficial (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ligovsky Avenue

[edit]

Not sure what to do with this. Article was WP:BLARed, but the current target is not helpful at all as it is a list of articles, and entries are generally bluelinks (and never redirects back to the page otherwise). Should this be deleted, the unsourced content be restored, or something else? 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly notable, I can create an article but not in the next two weeks, I am currently travelling. Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

[edit]

Street wine

[edit]

Not mentioned at either the current target or Flavored fortified wine (the target of Bum wine (the original target of these redirects)), leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Also, the target section does not currently exist; delete unless an explanation can be made. Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Protase Rogamboua

[edit]

This spelling of the surname does not seem to exist. There are no results on any of the three search engines I checked (specifically 1.org, DuckDuckGo, and Google) for both the full name and the surname spelling of "Rogamboua", and it seems to not be a common search term on here judging by pageview analysis. This is also the only result for "Rogamboua" onwiki. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought it would be useful as a phonetic spelling since I translated the page to greek and I kept forgetting how to spell the mans last name but if you believe there's no purpose for it I won't object to a deletion. Xristis963 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SHIT

[edit]

Not sure about the target. Is it better to retarget the redirect to the lowercase-title article, shit, or keep the redirect to the dab? SHSR T • C 19:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sugar Honey Iced Tea, which is the only thing at the DAB in all caps. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shit (1st choice) or Keep. I'm inclined to think shit is the most likely intended target. As profanity is commonly exclaimed or shouted, it's not clear that all caps changes things, but the dab page is reasonable in the event that we think otherwise. I doubt that the Latto album (Sugar Honey Iced Tea) is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term (WP:PT1). The styling SHIT isn't even mentioned in the article. Per WikiNav, the album is not one of the destinations readers navigated to from Shit (disambiguation) in the prior two months. Massviews shows a decent amount of traffic to the album in the last year, but less than Shit and several others. These number aren't definitive, but I think editors are more likely to be "astonished" if they land at Sugar Honey Iced Tea than either Shit or the dab page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Youth association football

[edit]

Section does not exist and topic is not mentioned on article. A section did exist when these redirects where created, but it is long gone.[12] This is a very real and notable topic, see Category:Youth association football. It is briefly mentioned in Youth sports, however I think deleting to encourage article creation per WP:RETURNTORED may be more helpful. Articles on the topic do exist in multiple other language Wikipedias: Youth soccer, Wikidata Q1711289. मल्ल (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Caligastia

[edit]

No mention on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Demogan, Afghanistan

[edit]

WP:RETURNTORED. Populated, legally recognized places are presumed notable and target article says only "Demogan is a location in Afghanistan." ~ A412 talk! 17:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the solution you want to happen here? Or do you recall your own RequestForDeletion now? "returntored"? Not clear. Be constructive please. --Franta Oashi (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETURNTORED, as the linked page indicates, is a shortcut for "delete as this could plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject". ~ A412 talk! 18:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Planetesimal theory of planetary formation

[edit]

It seems that this can refer both to the Chamberlin–Moulton and to Safronov's model? 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think today all those terms refer to the modern theory of planet formation (which is a section of the nebular hypothesis article), which proceeds via the accretion of planetesimals. Not the discredited ideas of Chamberlin & Moulton, which were disproven decades ago. But I could see a case for a disambiguation page. Modest Genius talk 11:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneless avocado

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn.

Mizar B

[edit]

Can also refer to one of the stars in the Mizar system. Current target only mentions the subject in one unannotated list entry. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chipkali

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in the target article, and ... apparently WP:FORRED as a word of the Hindi language per ... me of 11 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir of Austia-Hungary

[edit]

I could not find evidence that the target is ever known by "Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir of Austria-Hungary" (which makes sense since the target was born several decades after Austria-Hungary ceased to exist), and this redirect also contains a misspelling, with the correct spelling of Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir of Austria-Hungary not existing, so I propose deletion. Mathguy2718 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we bundle in the other 6 redirects to his article that start with "Archduke", or keep this one separate because of the misspelling and possibly nominate the others later depending on the outcome? Jruderman (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they could be bundled, and should definitely be discussed. This individual isn't even the pretender to the Archducal title; that would be his father Karl.
    I also note that the parenthetical disambiguation probably isn't needed, in that Ferdinand HabsburgFerdinand Habsburg redirects to a Ferdinand of Habsburg dab page on which none of the others are known by plain "Habsburg" rather than "of Habsburg" – though I guess an RM would be needed to settle that aspect. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as potentially misleading. While Habsburg tradition awarded the title of Archduke to all members of the house, that would theoretically make him an Archduke, but not the Archduke of Austria as he is not the current head of the house. More importantly, there are no reliable sources that use the title when referring to him (though there are a few that mention it). As an aside, it would even be illegal to use the title in Austria. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: per my own logic, the rationale to delete is weakest for the one redirect that doesn't include "of Austria". But reliable sources (i.e. not gossip or "royal" fandom sites) universally refer to him as "Ferdinand Habsburg", not using "Archduke" or indeed "Zvonimir". Rosbif73 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Onehunga Bay

[edit]

There are three Onehunga Bays in New Zealand and two are mentioned on-wiki in three different articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin, New Zealand

[edit]

More likely to refer to Franklin District or Franklin County, New Zealand. Franklin (New Zealand electorate) and Franklin Ward also exists. I am unsure whether a new dab or retargetting to the existing Franklin dab page at an anchor is more appropriate Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ūweto

[edit]

Misspelling of a non-English name for the subject that has 0 non-circular google hits. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Takānini, Auckland

[edit]

Incorrect spelling and an unnecessary disambiguator. Neither the misspelling without a disambiguator nor the correct spelling with a disambiguator exist Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't necessarily a misspelling - the name Takanini is named after a chief Takaanini, and there are sources which talk about how that is the correct spelling (eg. here). Wikipedia tends to use a macron in place of a double vowel even when the iwi in question would usually use the double vowel (eg. Ngāruawāhia instead of Ngaaruawaahia), so Takānini would be likely here. With that said, I don't think this redirect is necessary, but I also don't think you should be outright characterising it as a misspelling. Turnagra (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Takaanini is a compound of two words rather than a double vowel. (Taka-anini) See [13] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lectmont

[edit]

Supposedly the parent company, but this is unmentioned at the source and the only Google hits are circular or irrelevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome (song)

[edit]

There is definitely more than one song titled "Monochrome", though there is only one song titled "Monochrome" with an article, Monochrome (Ammonia song). Since there is one song with an article, would the Ammonia song be the primary topic? Even if not, the song by Ayumi Hamasaki is almost certainly not the primary topic, so the current target doesn't make sense. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tāhekeroa

[edit]

Whilst there is a meeting house of this name in Taheke there is also a locality of this name west of Wainui. I imagine most searches will be for the locality (which lacks an article). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kakanui Marae

[edit]

I removed mention from the target as it is located in Kakanui (not article, not to confused with a Kakanui in the South Island) not Glorit. There are 3 mentions on-wiki, neither in much depth. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canada in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026

[edit]

Canada did not participate in Eurovision in 2026; redirect is substantively misleading. Rusalkii (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to make it for 2027, whoops — IмSтevan talk 13:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The North Macedonia redirect for 2026 should also be deleted — IмSтevan talk 13:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 02:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Smith (supercentenarian)

[edit]

No longer listed in the article and I couldn't find another article where he's mentioned. The article only lists the oldest 100 people so his name shouldn't be readded to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he is not on the list, and therefore the redirect should be removed LincolnMagnus (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SMTS

[edit]

Looking this acronym up, there are many things without articles that this could refer to, and I'm not really seeing this as a major definition. It's not even the first song result I found. I couldn't really find anything on enwiki to justify DABification. Pageviews over the past 6 years match background noise for the most part as well. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's plausible as a search term. I myself have searched acronyms for songs before. SHSR T • C 19:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Banking Clan Transport

[edit]

Incredibly niche Star Wars ship that didn't even appear in any movies or cartoons not mentioned at target. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camels in Fremantle

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, also questioned by an IP editor in 2022 (diff). Possibly could refer to this 1942 newspaper article which mentions camels and Market Street, among other streets in Fremantle? Fork99 (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Independence

[edit]

Portugal isn't the only country that had its independence restored. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also had restorations of independence, see Baltic states § Restoration of independence. Note that there are plenty of places that had a "restoration of independence", and I believe Portugal would not be the primary topic for this term because this term is used quite often in reference to the Baltics. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Coonley

[edit]

I propose that this redirect be deleted per WP:RETURNTORED. "Avery Coonley" is not only the short name of a school, but also the name of the wealthy Chicago industrialist for whom the school is named. The industrialist may be notable, so it's misleading to have this redirect to the school. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The school is commonly known simply as "Avery Coonley", so the redirect is not at all misleading. If someone wants to write an article on the person they don't need the redirect deleted to do so. As a bonus, the school does have a little bit of information on the person. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that Coonley House has more info on Avery Coonley (the person) than the school article does. I would say that the current redirect (while a valid short name for the school) is a bit misleading because people looking for information on the person will instead find themselves looking at mentions of what he did there. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Preaching

[edit]

Retarget to preacher? Formigable (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 02:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun gang

[edit]

Created in 2002 with no incoming mainspace links. Factual misnomer -- moniker "gang" was historically associated with Lehi (the Stern Gang), not the Irgun. —Biosketch (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Music Play (song)

[edit]

Misplaced redirect. This redirect was created from a page move of what is now Let the Music Play (Shannon song). The move was made with the explanation To distinguish it from the Barry White hit song. Note that Let the Music Play (Barry White song)Let the Music Play (Barry White song) is a redirect to Let the Music Play (Barry White album). Also, Let the Music Play (Billy Preston song)Let the Music Play (Billy Preston song) → Encouraging Words, Let the Music Play (RuPaul song)Let the Music Play (RuPaul song) → Born Naked, Let the Music Play (Alexia song)Let the Music Play (Alexia song) → Happy (Alexia album). However, Shannon's song is the only song titled "Let the Music Play" that has an article. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Summerbee

[edit]

No information about this character at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. Delete this unsourced 3-sentence stub from 2005 that was BLAR'd in 2006. Jay 01:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

[edit]

Dusniky

[edit]

Dušníky is the Czech name for the Polish town of Duszniki-Zdrój. However, the article Dušníky is about a village in the Czech Republic. I'm tempted to retarget, but this redirect has targeted the Polish town for over 20 years uninterrupted (with hundreds of views during the time), so there might be something I'm missing, hence I'm nominating this redirect for discussion. Mathguy2718 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted disambiguation. --Joy (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dab or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Czech name for a 400-person place within Czech borders and a 4,000-person place outside of Czech borders. While these numbers technically differ by an order of magnitude, neither of them is actually a particularly large place in the grand scheme of things, and neither of them seems to have any particular affinity to the average English reader.
With regard to hundreds of views over 20 years, that's actually also pretty insignificant. If we look at the graph of those views compared between the redirect and the village, the single larger spike seems to correspond to a rise in interest in the village. And if we compare all three, there's likewise very little apparent correlation between the interest in the town article and the redirect.
It seems entirely safe to disambiguate this, and present the readers with a simple list that won't surprise anyone.
If we do that, we might actually start to be able to see more reliable statistics, because the external search engine behavior will change (they don't feed into our redirect statistics). That will make it even more possible to reassess this in the future. --Joy (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

E−

[edit]

I think this is a lot more likely to refer to Electron. Note that e- currently redirects to a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NIST University

[edit]

Relisting from WP:Articles for deletion/NIST University. Original outcome was redirect to Brahmapur, Odisha#Institutions; however, since that article has since been cleaned up this school is no longer listed at all (and the section jump no longer works as it was retitled in the process). WP:RETURNTORED seems like the best course of action until/unless substantiated information is added to either this article or another. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When there is a recent AfD that says notability cannot be established, it doesn't work with WP:RETURNTORED which says: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, ... Even at the AfD, in which you were the nom, you believed RETURNTORED would be applicable if turned into a redirect. Just letting you know it is contradictory. Jay 08:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the previous AfD closed as retarget I am uncomfortable closing this as a soft delete absent further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sea button

[edit]

Common name not used in reliable sources, created by a now blocked account. Oxford English Dictionary (paywalled) defines "sea-button" as an obsolete term meaning "A sea urchin", based on Walter Charleton's 1668 book Onomasticon Zoicon which uses it to refer to Echinus minimus, now recognised as a synonym of Parechinus angulosus, though I cannot find any usage of this common name for this taxon in any modern texts. This common name does not appear to be widely used for any particular species, so I would suggest a WP:RETURNTORED. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 14:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Clearwater

[edit]

No such section, and no information about this character at the target. There is mention in multiple other articles, although I couldn't find a single suitable one for retargeting. The Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) has a two-word description, but the same is not available at the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets book. It would be odd to target the film over the book. Delete to favour search results. The page has some history though. Jay 10:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum systems

[edit]

I think the primary topic for quantum systems is obviously Quantum-Systems. Srleffler disagreed and reverted my retarget. Other editors discussed the topic in WT:D#Quantum supremacy and might want to join the discussion here. Courtesy ping: Joy, Myceteae, Certes. Tercer (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFCAPS disagrees, and so do I.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point is what readers typing "quantum systems" are looking for. People are unlikely to capitalise when searching because that's more effort and rarely meaningful, so it's the most natural search term for Quantum-Systems (which should be moved to Quantum Systems in any case). It's not a natural way to refer to quantum mechanics or quantum state; "quantum system" in the singular can refer to the latter. The closest thing we get in the technical literature is open quantum systems, where we see that the plural form is so unusual that nobody even bothered to create a redirect to open quantum system.
As an additional piece of evidence, I tried searching for "quantum systems" (without quotation marks) in both DuckDuckGo and Google, and the entire first page of results was about the concept. Tercer (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything unnatural about the plural. Searching "quantum systems" with quotes I get ≈ 591,000 Google Scholar hits and 2,968 hits on arXiv. Ngram shows that usage of the singular and plural trend together with roughly equal usage; the plural was more common in books until about 1995. I do get more hits for the company on the first page of Google and DuckDcukGo search but after the first page, other uses predominate. This looks like a straightforward case of WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PLURALPT. Side note, I've boldly moved Quantum-Systems to Quantum Systems. That came up in the last discussion, too, and I'm not seeing evidence that the hyphen is the common name. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's unnatural as a search term, not as something to use in text. If you want to know what a quantum system is you search for quantum system, not quantum systems. Tercer (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's an important distinction. The plural probably increases the likelihood somewhat that readers are searching for the company but I disagree that it is an unnatural way to search for the genetic topic. People tend to think of topics it the plural, as in "I want to read about lions, tigers, and bears" or "She is interested in planets". I'm not yet seeing a convincing case that this is an exception to WP:PLURALPT. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're talking about an "exception" to WP:PLURALPT, as it also talks precisely about this situation, where the plural form is a different primary topic. I think the case here is even stronger than the examples it shows because we don't even have an article for the singular form. Tercer (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean an exception to the normal situation described at PLURALPT where the singular and plural most often have the same primary topic, whether one or both are redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of derailing the discussion, I'm fascinated with your observation that "quantum systems" has become less popular than "quantum system" in the late 90s. That coincidences with the rise in popularity of quantum information theory in general and entanglement theory in particular. I believe it is actually the reason: while you can still talk about individual quantum systems, it's more natural and interesting to consider them as a joint quantum system, that might be entangled. I have written myself countless times about the quantum system shared by Alice and Bob. Tercer (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with ngrams is that plural vs. singular of this phrase isn't necessarily the full context. We could also look at more related terms as well as case differences and notice how relatively very rare it seems to be for books to start a sentence with the term quantum systems - presumably a common way of introducing or defining something, much more rare than with quantum mechanics.
While it's relatively easy to argue that the older physics term is probably more commonly used than the drone company name, it's still all pretty specialized terminology, and this is a general encyclopedia. We also don't know the cause of the recent search trend change I mentioned earlier.
I'd say we should disambiguate it as a compromise and test our assumptions on reader interests and behavior. A two-item disambiguation page here doesn't seem likely to surprise many people. Worst case we prove the primacy of the physics term and restore the redirect a bit later. --Joy (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the same thing you are in the data. No surprise that quantum mechanics is the far more common term. If we look at this we can see that sentences start with Quantum systems 3.5x as often as the singular Quantum system. This Ngram shows that Quantum systems are is the most common way to start a sentence, followed distantly by Quantum systems can, Quantum systems with, Quantum systems have, and Quantum systems that. As for Google Trends it looks like the singular and plural more or less trend together, with the singular being more popular. We can't be sure of the cause behind the trend you highlighted in the previous discussion but if it were driven by the company Quantum Systems I would expect a significant divergence between the singular and the plural. When I search "quantum systems", especially on DuckDuckGo, I get a few hits related to "IBM Real Quantum Systems" and other references to quantum computers. A likely explanation for all the trends is that the terminology is buzzy in recent years. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first Google Trends link I shared also shows that it is not unnatural to search for the plural. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the key point is that 3.5x very little is still very little :D Maybe the internal comparison between the two physics terms doesn't illustrate it well. --Joy (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to start talking in circles. (This is not a dig—it is an expression of attempted self-restraint!) My key point is I'm not seeing any evidence that the singular has a different primary topic than the plural. Per WP:DPT: Usage in English-language reliable sources matters the most. A challenge here is that reliable sources for a company and a physics concept are different, so 1:1 comparisons from individual source types or corpora are difficult. A quick scan of Google News suggests quantum computing is driving usage in news sources. I didn't do a deep dive and many sources that popped up appeared to be trade publications that may or may not be reliable. I tried a Google search of The New York Times using "quantum systems" site:nytimes.com and many results were related to quantum computers, though not exclusively. I found one reference to Quantum Systems[22] and two older references (both from 1994) to a US-based company that was also named Quantum Systems.[23][24] I found a handful of other uses of Quantum Systems as part of another proper name but the vast majority were generic uses of the plural of quantum systemquantum system. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think your search is misguided. What matters is not which meaning is used most often, but what the reader is searching for when they search for "quantum systems". Certainly not quantum computers, because in this case the reader would search for "quantum computer".
There is however an easy way to determine what the reader is searching for: create a Quantum systems (disambiguation) page, and look at which link there is clicked the most. Tercer (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the source usage is most relevant, but we still have to weigh the sources - a specialized scholarly topic may ostensibly be better sourced than something from more general news, but we still have to ponder what's the actually common usage. --Joy (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
…but the general news also does not support the company as primary topic. I'm just not seeing any reason to believe that reader searches differ markedly from the way the terms are used in sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand how you reconcile the fact that you have to really try hard to find the pure physics topic in the news coverage with this. --Joy (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was not hard. I found news coverage to be more limited overall and to be a mix of pure physics, quantum computing, and industry news of questionable reliability. A minority of usage I have found in all sources is about the company. If the company were the primary topic for quantum systems, regardless of capitalization, I would expect overwhelming predominance of coverage to be about the company in at least one of the places I looked—that's what I've tried really hard to do—and I just can't find it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To disambiguate, we don't need anything to be overwhelming, on the contrary. We just need to see that the term is ambiguous. And we do see that here.
Maybe it wasn't ambiguous 20 years ago, but right now, it sure seems like it. --Joy (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PLURALPT, WP:DPT, and WP:DIFFCAPS as extensively detailed above. The meaning related to quantum mechanics is undisputedly the primary topic by long-term significance (WP:PT2) over the German Company that was founded in 2015. All available evidence indicates that the singular and plural are used in the same fashion to refer to the same thing, and that primer topic by usage (WP:PT1) is unchanged. A parallel spike in search interest for the singular and plural forms is best explained by increasing coverage of quantum mechanics–based technology and buzzwords. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Myceteae's analysis, pretty much. And in general, having a company name be the primary target for what is basically a common-noun term is the kind of situation we'd want an ironclad justification for. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating myself, the only way to get ironclad evidence is to create a disambiguation page and check the statistics. Tercer (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tercer your nomination statement above implies you still think a redirect to the company article is the best, so you might wish to rephrase that to clarify that you actually want disambiguation at the base name. --Joy (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think a redirect to the company article is the best. I think a disambiguation page is an acceptable compromise, with the added bonus that it will provide us hard evidence with which to settle the issue. Tercer (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plarium Games

[edit]

Plarium has published several games we have articles on, delete and let search handle it. Rusalkii (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:RETURNTORED. मल्ल (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, if the T&F home video article still existed I would retarget this there, but since it doesn't I feel like this should probably be Deleted Gavetheman555 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 11:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & his Friends Help Out

[edit]

There is nothing in the target article related to this. As a Thomas & Friends fan myself, I have no idea what this is referring to. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 21:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect I think is referring to a VHS/DVD that was put out? I have almost no clue but I would say Delete per nom, as it is not mentioned in the current T&F page. Gavetheman555 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Liner cocktail

[edit]

Not mentioned, as none of the things in the disambiguation page are cocktails. There is some history of this being an article, with this revision is clearly similar to this revision of "Flatliner", at that time a separate article. Flatliner was converted into a disambiguation page with a Wikibooks entry in this revision. The Wikibooks link was replaced with a redlink in in this 2008 diff, but that link was removed in 2018. Note that neither Flat liner nor Flat Liner exist, which served as redlinks for the cocktail. The history of this redirect may need to be retained (though unsourced), but the redirect to the disambiguation page is actively unhelpful for those who are going to include "cocktail" in their search as it should be unambiguous, but unmentioned at the target. Note that search results do show the Wikibooks entry on the right, though other irrelevant results are also shown. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect through {{wikibook redirect}} to wikibooks:Bartending/Cocktails/Flat Liner. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Hasan

[edit]

Judging by what links to it, this is not the right target and should be deleted. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Scoffer

[edit]

doesn't seem to have ever been a draft consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

名

[edit]

should probably be retargeted back to chinese given name where it's actually mentioned, but it's a good idea to make consensus a little more concrete than not at all consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Chinese, does it mean "Chinese given name" or "given name"? Jruderman (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    relevant to this, "name" or "given name". other uses are pretty similar to other uses of the english word "name", but those are besides the point, and those two definitions are by far the primary topic anyway consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 01:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It just means "given name"。 Do we have precedent for the sort of redirect proposed? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the exact same character also means "given name" in Japanese, see Japanese name#Given names. Fork99 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    RFROREIGN says that a redirect should be deleted if it points to an article not directly related to the language it's written in or a culture associated with that language. If we consider "名" a Chinese redirect then Chinese given name is directly related to Chinese, if we instead consider it a Japanese redirect then Japanese name#Given names is directly related to Japanese. Can you explain why RFOREIGN justifies deletion over retargeting in this case? Warudo (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the same symbol could plausibly redirect to two different articles depending on which language you assume it is in is a great example of one of the reasons why the guideline I linked above forbids redirecting foreign words.
    Beyond that, from the discussion above it seems this symbol does not mean "Chinese given name" nor "Japanese given name" but rather simply "given name". It is therefore not describing a concept that is unique to either language. The proper solution is to not redirect this symbol at all. --Srleffler (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is therefore not describing a concept that is unique to either language. Previous consensus indicates that this is irrelevant. A foreign redirect does not need to describe a concept uniquely connected to its language so long as its target is connected to its language. For example, 氮氮 which means 'nitrogen' in Chinese and is therefore not unique to Chinese at all was not deleted at RfD and was instead retargeted to Chemical elements in East Asian languages. FORRED (an explanatory essay, not a guideline) does not say that the topic a foreign redirect describes needs to have affinity to its language, it only says that its target needs to. FORRED does not [forbid] redirecting foreign words either.
    As for the other problem you brought up, that can easily be solved by a hatnote which is a pretty cheap solution. Warudo (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how as above it could be both Chinese and Japanese, I propose refine to Given name#East Asia. Anywaydun (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I seem to have meant retarget, as the current target is Name, not Given name. Anywaydun (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As consarn states, ⟨名⟩ means 'name' and corresponds to many different uses of the word in English, e.g. title ('name') of a book. It is also used in a number of other compounds and idiomatic expressions See wikt:名. It does not specifically mean Japanese name or Chinese name or East Asian name. For example, the Chinese Wikipedia article for English name is zh:英語人名. Targeting to any specific type of name is inaccurate. This fails WP:FORRED for Name and Given name. Just about every culture and language has a concept for name; there is no 'special affinity' for Chinese or any other language. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Myceteae. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colorodo Libertarain Party

[edit]

Implausible typo due to two misspellings (Colorado -> Colorodo, Libertarian -> Libertarain), so I suggest deletion Duckmather (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kunlun Mountain Fist

[edit]

I prodded this in 2022 as a hoax, given that I could not find anything but blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. Despite being added to WP:HOAXLIST and not being contested there, it was redirected anyway with a rationale of This is a plausible redirect since Kunlunquan has the same first two characters as Kunlun Mountains. While "Kunlun" itself might be a plausible redirect, the only results on Google for "Kunlun Mountain Fist" are from unreliable blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, or Facebook posts that likely swiped from Wikipedia in the first place. This redirect gets less than one hit per day, suggesting it is not a likely search term, and its un-challenged presence on WP:HOAXLIST would suggest it is, indeed, a hoax not worth preserving even as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting:
    • "1. They have a potentially useful page history ... " – this redirect has useful page history containing content that can be used to find more sources about the Chinese martial arts style Kunlunquan.
    • "3. They aid searches on certain terms." – this is a plausible redirect because the Kunlun Mountains are associated with the Chinese martial arts style Kunlunquan. Here is a source that makes that connection:
      • Qi, Wanqiang 祁万强 (2006-06-18). "青海武术流派系列报道 昆仑武术神 高原展雄风" [Qinghai Martial Arts Schools: A Series of Reports. Kunlun Martial Arts: Displaying Might on the High Plateau]. 青海新闻网 [Qinghai News Network] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-07-05. Retrieved 2026-07-05 – via Sina Corporation.

        The article notes: "昆仑山峰峦起伏、景色秀丽、鲜花争奇斗艳，自古以来修身养性之人接踵前往。道教全真派开山祖师王重阳同他的七位弟子，在这里创教立派。据传，昆仑拳就是以昆仑山得名。"

        From Google Translate: "With its rolling peaks, stunning scenery, and vibrant blossoms, the Kunlun Mountains have long attracted seekers of spiritual and physical cultivation. Wang Chongyang, the founder of the Quanzhen School of Taoism, established his sect here alongside his seven disciples. Legend has it that Kunlunquan (Kunlun Fist) derives its name from these very mountains."

Cunard (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry is this AI? There are no references in the article history. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding There are no references in the article history, I did not say there were references in the article's history when I wrote this redirect has useful page history containing content that can be used to find more sources about the Chinese martial arts style Kunlunquan. The content of the article can be used to refine search queries to find more sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Kunlunquan"（昆仑拳） literally mean "Kunlun Fist" (though I'd say "... Punch"), where Kunlun is one of the longest mountain chains in Asia? Kunlun pretty much only refers to the mountains, the real ones I just mentioned or the mythological, in Chinese. Looking at Kunlun (disambiguation), the only entry not related to the mountains is spelled 崑崙 or 昆侖 instead of 昆仑 and there are no records of “崑崙拳” or “昆侖拳”, except https://熊氏太極拳.app/category/%E5%B4%91%E5%B4%99%E6%8B%B3/ where it is a clear misspelling of 昆仑拳. @TenPoundHammer I feel like there's something I'm missing to understand your argument. At most this seems to me like excessive disambiguation, like "ATM Machine". In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Takapaukura

[edit]

Takapaukura is located near North Cape but it is not part of North Cape nor is it mentioned at the target Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore i am

[edit]

Don't see any indication that the title in lowercase should refer to something other than the base page at Therefore I Am. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair flight in Belarus

[edit]

The target article is about one particular Ryanair flight that was diverted to Belarus in 2021, notable for the arrest of Roman Protasevicharrest of Roman Protasevich but the redirects are potentially misleading as far too broad in scope. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map

[edit]

This generic name will never be useful and has only created confusion. It should be deleted and salted, to be used only after a significant discussion involving many editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, {{map}} is just too ambiguous.
Likewise {{maps}} should be moved to {{Maps (musician)}}. --Joy (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Attorney General

[edit]

Currently the "more disambiguated" title redirects to the "more ambiguous" page (a disambig page, which also does not list the target of the first title). Does this position exist in other parts of the UK? 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well the first one is definitely wrong - when I typed Shadow Attorney General into google the first search suggestion was "Shadow Attorney General Australia" with Shadow cabinet (Australia) as the second result, each Australian state also seems to have a Shadow Attorney General as does Uganda (I have not looked to see if we have articles) suggesting that other former British colonies might also. In Scotland and Northern Ireland there isn't a position with this name, with Shadow Advocate General being the equivalent. My initial thought therefore is disambig the base title (not everywhere that has an AG also has a shadow one though (e.g. Ireland) so a straight redirect to that dab might be misleading), add information about the Shadow position to the AG of the UK dab page and keep the redirect targetting there (i.e. make it a combned dab). Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No entry for the Shadow AG yet at the disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 09:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist to consider the late suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vine

[edit]

Delete per WP:Deadname. See also Talk:Hollow_Knight:_Silksong#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_July_2026. meamemg (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • They had been credited as "Jack Vine" on the game because it was released before their transition, so the Elliot Page Clause of WP:DEADNAME applies. A footnote similar to Juno (film)#Notes should be added and then the redirect can be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difference here is that Vine is not currently notable, which is a requirement for that to apply. (Perhaps that's an independent reason to delete?) meamemg (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance was written with articles in mind, in which case the notability clause makes sense. However, redirects don't have notability so we can't use that when determining whether or not a redirect should be kept. The equivalent for redirects is the fact that should the "Jack Vine" redirect have gone to RfD prior to their transition, it would have been kept. -- Tavix (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that interpretation of the policy. The notability standard applies to any mentions of the dead name, not just article creations. It applies even just text and mentions in articles, where (like redirects) the notability standard doesn't normally apply. meamemg (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. On one hand, MOS:DEADNAME specifically says to not keep redirects unless the person was notable under a former name; Jasmine probably doesn't independently meet that bar. That said, keeping redirects is useful for readers who see a deadname in an old publication, which is likely to happen here. I think the MOS should sometimes allow redirects even in cases when all other mentions of a name are removed. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As creator of this redirect: Hollow Knight and Hollow Knight: Silksong, and Team Cherry website still uses DEADNAME btw. At least as of July 21st, 2026. So I think for especially now it is good to keep the redirect since people interacting with official material know her by it. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the possible MOS:DEADNAME issue, this redirect just isn't helpful because the old name is not mentioned on the target page. Jruderman (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:DEADNAME as Vine has not been determined to be a notable person therefore the previous name cannot pass the test of it the person was notable under their former name. If Vine is determined at some point in the future to be a notable person, this of course can be revisited as their work on Silksong would likely contribute to that notability. Raskuly 🐰 05:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. The policy clearly says that a trans person's deadname should not appear in a redirect unless the person met the notability criteria under their previous name. Vine does not meet the notability criteria at all, so her deadname is considered private personal information by our standards. The miniscule chance that someone sees her deadname in Silksong's credits and decides to type it into Wikipedia is not worth carving out an exception to this policy. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 09:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert the edit that removed the text from the page. Tavix above is on the right track for why we should keep. Independently of that, the edit that creates this problem was erroneous because WP:DEADNAME states "Use the name [...] that reflect[s] the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources", and that edit, while good faith, instead of reliable sources relies on a significant amount of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:SPS (is it WP:SPSAS? Well, how much OR do you want to do to conclude that this person who claims to have worked for Team Cherry on their personal webpage really is anyone who has...?) to try to infer that the programmer from Silksong has changed name. Apparently only citing a url change as evidence. (Which the article does not cite, to be clear.)
I would also like to highlight As creator of this redirect: Hollow Knight and Hollow Knight: Silksong, and Team Cherry website still uses DEADNAME btw. At least as of July 21st, 2026. So I think for especially now it is good to keep the redirect since people interacting with official material know her by it. TheSilksongPikmin 22:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC) above. Frankly after looking at our current page I couldn't tell if there was any RS that mentioned this programmer at all, but luckily the Team Cherry website would be a suitable source (for the old name). It should ideally be cited in addition when the old page is restored.
Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SELFSOURCE, a personal webpage or social media profile is considered a reliable source in cases like this. I find it quite reasonable to suspect that jasvine.com and the social media profiles it links to are indeed operated by the Team Cherry programmer and constitute the "most recent reliable sources" regarding her self-identification. However, I will admit that it is definitely strange that Team Cherry hasn't updated their About page with Vine's new name yet. I decided to contact them about it through their website, and I'll let you all know if they respond. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 14:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie McDonald

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, although note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie McDonald (2nd nomination) closed as redirect/has history about the real person the fictional character was named after. Seemingly a real person is mentioned at the song article Burning Lights but as a credit. Fork99 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit animal abuse

[edit]

The word "Detroit" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe there was some logic to this back in 2010 when the redirect was created but there isn't now. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate touching

[edit]

Could also refer to Sexual assault. Delete as ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should go somewhere. "Inappropriate touching" is definitely something that somebody might search for and we want them to find what they are looking for. The current target is plausible but I think Sexual assault might cover the same topic more broadly and hence be a better starting point. I don't think it is ambiguous. Both potential targets cover the same topic area with different degrees of granularity, the question is which is most likely to be what the reader wants. I'm not sure so I'll say keep or retarget just to register that I don't think they should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It could also refer to Masturbation or Sexual harassment, don't you think? I would !vote delete, too ambiguous. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that either of those is an appropriate target. Perhaps there is a difference in national varieties of English? "Inappropriate touching" has a very specific meaning where I'm from, which could be described as either "groping" or "sexual assault".--Srleffler (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Sexual assault" would also be accurate, but "groping" is more specific.--Srleffler (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be more specific. Also, an inappropriate touch is not necessarily sexual in nature. Although the groping article begins by categorizing groping as sexual contact, the lede also talks about other, non-sexual uses. So it is both more specific and a more accurate target for this, I think. lethargilistic (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Harry Potter characters sorted in Goblet of Fire book

[edit]

Not mentioned at target and seemingly no mentions elsewhere (except Orla Quirke, which appears to also be a real person mentioned in various song/album articles but as a credit, so no good target). None have history as they originally redirected to Minor Ravenclaws, Minor Hufflepuffs or Minor Slytherins, then through a series of double redirects being fixed over the years to the current target. Fork99 (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in redirecting somewhere that doesn't have information about the topic in question. That will only confuse people and waste their time --DanielRigal (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, OH

[edit]

Duplicate of 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, OH; likely not necessary given the only difference being capitalization JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, FL

[edit]

Duplicate to 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, FL; arguably not necessary given capitals are the only differentiator JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dana King (singer)

[edit]

Unwanted draftification of article reverted an admin (Rusalkii) and another (newcomer) admin (MPGuy2824) declined my deletion request that he saw ho harm. I think this RDRAFT is really being abused here, hence why I've broght it over here for discussion, so as to discourage creating such as this. Intrisit (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shrug. I'm with MPGuy here, this isn't helping much but redirects in draftspace to the corresponding articles also don't hurt anyone and could conceivably help (for instance, if someone was linked the draft article in a draftification notification). I guess we could delete while we're here, but I don't think it's worth the fuss of an RfD. Rusalkii (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well, per DRAFTOBJECT, this should (if not you should) at least move it/be moved to the mainspace without leaving a redirect, as you're an admin, thus making this title red and this RfD wouldn't have happened. Maybe I should take some accountability to address you and MPGuy2824 on this on my talk page. Sure it doesn't hurt anyone (not even me), but if I were an admin right now and I saw this, I would've move this title back to the mainspace without leaving a redirect, because your move reversion rationale of; revert draftification by Jeraxmoira ; given previous AfD page should not be unilaterally draftified made me do this! It's not that difficult, you know. Intrisit (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup the mess.--Srleffler (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rissoina stricta

[edit]

This currently redirects to the article Rissoina io, however, both Rissoina io and Rissoina stricta are considered valid species by WoRMS/MolluscaBase - they are not synonymous with each other. I would suggest a WP:RETURNTORED. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ethmostigmus. At the very least this species shoudn't redirect to an entirely different one. I agree that this should be deleted because Rissoina stricta passes WP:NSPECIES, which says that [a]ll eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. We currently don't have much information on the species, neither at the target nor at Rissoina, which only has the species name and authority. I think this makes a return to red appropriate. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would support expanding the redirect into its own article instead of deleting it. Walteronthehill (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you about to create it? Then go ahead. Otherwise, it is supposed to remain a redlink until the relevant article appears. There's certainly no case for sticking with the redirect in the meantime. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Bulstrode

[edit]

No information about this character at the target. There is mention in some other articles, and of an actor who played the character, but I couldn't find a single suitable one for retargeting. Delete to favour search results. The entry may be removed from list articles. Jay 06:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled Millicent Bullstrode with this. Jay 05:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Trelawney

[edit]

No information about this character at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. The page had unsourced content for about 2 months in 2005, and it said there that she is a great-great grandmother of the target anchor Sybil Trelawney, who has 4 sentences at the list page, but none about this relative. Delete as not helpful. Jay 05:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. lethargilistic (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Alanis Morissette Album

[edit]

Outdated name, her "new"est album is Last Christmas, released in 2023. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arts District station (disambiguation)

[edit]

Move to Arts District station (Pulse) (or similar, examples) and retarget to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. The article history from WP:Articles for deletion/Arts District station is under this redirect. Please excuse if this nomination is inappropriate. I am unsure about all the details, and I would like to avoid making a mess. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 05:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, what J947 stated did indeed occur. Striking my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wine grape

[edit]

Are these meant to refer to the same thing? "Wine grape" and "Wine grapes" are commonly linked (about 70 combined when excluding uses that come from transclusions of {{Wine-grape-stub}}). In addition, there are 15 uses of [[wine grape]]s, so several links may need to be checked if the answer to my above question is no. I do note that these redirects have existed targeting different articles since 2007 (the singular redirects did get refined in 2012 though), and the three redirects have gotten thousands of views every year with no previous objections to these redirects, so I wouldn't be too surprised if "wine grape" and "wine grapes" turn out to be different. But then again, if these are different, why? Neither target mentions a distinction. Wine Grapes is justifiably a different article about a book through WP:DIFFCAPS, but I can't see why WP:DIFFPLURAL applies, even though these redirects get tens of thousands of views. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled David Robert Mitchell film

[edit]

Nominating this redirect on behalf of TalkTuahLunchly, who attempted to nominate this redirect with the following rationale: This redirect should probably be deleted, as the title was revealed. CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep There appears to have been some disagreement about what the name of this film is - the article was created at this title, moved to Flowervale Street in March 2024. In March 2026 there was a complicated back-and-forth about the title. In 2025 the redirect got 20 views, which is a little more than double background noise. In 2026 (until yesterday) it had 24 (18 if we assume every view in March was related to the naming issue) that's still a lot higher than a redirect that is umambiguously no longer required. What gives me pause over recommending a straight keep on those grounds is that David Robert Mitchell indicates that there is a subsequent film is in the works, but that has had a title since 2023 so seems less likely to be what people are looking for than a film that was named later and then had confusion about its name. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LincolnMagnus (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thryduulf's rationale that this filmmaker had an untitled film in the works since 2023 also counts here, so approximately 3 years now. Unless it's a "development hell" or abandoned film, this redirect must go! This redirect was created on 29 March 2024 at 18:03 UTC, so more than two years ago. As and when his next film is reported to be in the works post-the now-titled film, "The End of Oak Street/Flowervale Street", this redirect can be recreated or this title can have an article again. But as at now ..... Intrisit (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have misread my comment. This filmmaker hasn't had an untitled film in the works since 2023, they've had a different film in the works that has been titled since before this redirect existed. Also, the age since creation is not a relevant factor in determining whether the redirect is still useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, show me such, because how UFILM covers the deletion of "Untitled ... film/movie" titles is way too vague; no wonder I see a lot of these here at RFD, whether or not they are retained! This is exactly what confuses me with redirects like this! Looks like I dare have to pose the question to anyone who dares to create these/those (either by themselves or at AFC/R) from this edit onwards just to incubate sources from which titles like this emerge from the unseen into the person/company making such until the title(s) is/are officially revealed before. the age since creation is not a relevant factor in determining whether the redirect is still useful.; how I would love to see such discussion raised at the RFD talk page or at UFILM's talk page. True, I may have IDONTLIKEIT tendencies, but in the name of "Redirects are cheap", such rdr titles like this keep popping up and it may get infuriating sooner rather than later. Intrisit (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This can do with some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 04:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal whiskey

[edit]

Seems a bit vague. But perhaps not; maybe this is the best (and a worthy) target? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Alcohol law as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of illegal alcohol. I agree this isn't great as they are just overlapping sets - some illegal whiskey is moonshine, some moonshine is illegal whiskey but neither term wholly encompasses the other. Internal search results aren't great either, moonshine is the first result but that's at least partly due to this redirect. Whiskey Ring is the second hit, which is too specific to be a target for this redirect but does show that not all illegal whiskey is moonshine. Illegal alcohol redirects to Alcohol law (Tavix retargetted it there from Moonshine in 2016, which I agree with), and that's the only general article I've found, but while that goes into the various ways alcohol can be illegal the only mention of whiskey specifically is in the context of the Whiskey Rebellion which while not irrelevant is not what I'd be looking for if using this search term. I think therefore it boils down to is Alcohol law a good enough target, I think so but only weakly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If this is not deleted, Illegal whisky should be created as a redirect to whatever target this ends up having. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 04:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Nat Bank of St Louis v Stout

[edit]

The proper formatting for this is Fourth National Bank of St. Louis v. Stout, which is already a redirect, and the abbreviated form is also a redirect Fourth Nat Bank of St Louis v. Stout. This contains two implausible formatting errors, as it's missing the period for St. Louis and the v. for versus, making it an unlikely search term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 04:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ji Yong Mu

[edit]

I don't see any evidence that this person is called "Ji Yong Mu" (searching for this term on google produces unrelated results largely related to a Korean-language translation of the Heart Sutra instead). Since this is a Chinese-language name, if you were to put the surname last and then split the two-hanzi given name with a space, the result should be "Jie Yong Mu" (emphasis added). The Korean-language name listed (albeit without a citation) is "모영걸", which transliterates to "Mo Young-geol", which also doesn't match this incorrect name. So I suggest deletion (without prejudice to creating the correctly-spelled version). Duckmather (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

靜岡

[edit]

Per WP:FORRED. This is the Chinese name of the city located in Japan. “静岡” is the proper Japanese name of the city Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 靜岡 is how the name used to be written in Japanese. 靜 is a kyūjitai that was simplified to 静 in the twentieth century. ~2026-41491-86 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I withdraw my previous !vote. Keep.--Srleffler (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the TA as an older Japanese spelling. I've changed the misleading rcat to something that indicates the spelling is still Japanese. Warudo (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chockey chicken

[edit]

Per text from Rocko's Modern Life: The series' fictional restaurant, Chokey Chicken, is based on the phrase, "to choke the chicken", a slang term for masturbation. After the name had been intact in its first three seasons, someone reported the innuendo by the fourth season's production, resulting in its name change to Chewey Chicken. Arguably, this redirect should be retargeted to the mention in the context of the show, which is itself referencing the crude slang term. Otherwise, I would vote deletion. "Chockey" is clearly a misspelling of "Chokey" rather than "Choking the". TNstingray (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Travis

[edit]

Travis Scott is one of several targets that this could point to (Travis Tritt and Randy Travis come to mind, and he isn't even the only rapper with Travis Mills). The case could certainly be made that Travis Scott is the most famous of these, but I also see that as either recency bias or bias toward a particular genre. I propose either retargetting to Travis (dab page) or deleting as unhelpful due to the lack of a primary target. TNstingray (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Case Black

[edit]

This was apparently a mistranslation that isn't actually found in the sources, cf. Talk:Operation Weiss, which also links to previous RfD's for the same issue with "Case White". I mostly cleaned up the article space already. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 17:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Case Black, at least for now. Even if this is an egregious mistranslation, the article was at this title for over a decade, and the Case Black redirect is still getting a couple hits a day. No opinion on the other two. Rusalkii (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 00:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii that's fair, but it does beg the question - if not now, when would we be able to get rid of this error? Do we have some sort of a benchmark for these kinds of cases? Page views indicate the bulk of the readership has already switched, but who knows if we ever get rid of the stragglers. The Internet never forgets, and it's only getting bigger, so there's probably going to be something observable in the statistics for as long as we keep it. --Joy (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy WP:UFILM suggests waiting a minimum of 30 days, which I suppose has already passed during the course of this RfD. In the film case there's no consensus on the number of page views to remove the no-longer-accurate redirect. This is of course a different case, since no one will be misled by "Untitled X film" into thinking that's really the name of the film. In this case we're weighing two risk of that happening against people following links that are now broken, or usage of the mistranslation due to citogensis or other reasons. At RfD we generally take the opinion that even inaccurate redirects should be kept if people use them, since the mistake will be corrected at the target page (e.g. R from misspelling), but subtle errors like this are more complicated. So I guess, uh, that's a long winded way to say that I don't know. Perhaps we could wait a few months and then renominate for a fresh look once the long term page views become clearer - any redirect at RfD receives higher than baseline page views, so it's hard to tease out that effect. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helen of Athena

[edit]

I cannot find this as an attribution to Helen of Troy anywhere. They are only connected in the Judgement of Paris story, but it doesn't make sense for this title to convey Helen coming from Athena as an ancestor or geographic origin (Athens?). Proposing Deletion. TNstingray (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

[edit]

Seal of the Iroquois Confederacy

[edit]

Delete. Not discussed at the target. Anyone searching or clicking a link is looking for details of this seal, which we appear not to cover. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely used redirects to Template:Distinguished

[edit]

There are too many template redirects to {{distinguish}}; all of them have to be individually added to the list at Module:Excerpt/config and perhaps other scripts. This increases manual maintenance burden and makes the regular expression that finds templates to suppress to take longer. It's better for editors to have a small number of easy-to-remember and commonly-used aliases rather than a large number of rarely-used ones with a few being heavily used. I have converted a handful of articles that used each of these redirect to point directly at Template:Distinguish.
Template:NTCBW is a misspelling of the acronym for "not to be confused with".

Template:Misspelling seems like it could be confused with lots of other things, and I found one instance of it being used where {{R from misspelling}} should be and one instance of it on a disambiguation page in an erroneous attempt to add categories or something? It was only used correctly on 3 articles.

Template:Distinct used to say "This topic is distinct from _" but it was in use for less than a month before it was redirected.

Template:Did you mean sounds like an auto-suggestion, which this is not. -- Beland (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Beland (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this list just now I thought {{do not confuse}} and {{distinct}} were reasonable synonyms for this use case. The others are probably good to prune. --Joy (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A lot of editors who don't deal with template don't understand the amount of additional work each "harmless" template redirect adds. Some tools also completely fail with redirects. Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this claim sounds rather haughty and less than plausible. It would be far more impressive if a modicum of information and measurements on this matter was provided instead. For example, what is the specific change in which regular expression, and how much does it improve the execution time? --Joy (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{misspelling}} as a confusing and easily-misused redirect. Misspellings are not the main purpose of this template, and this is not the main template for dealing with misspellings. No opinion on the rest. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As follows:
    • Delete NTCBW per nom.
    • Retarget Misspelling to {{Copy edit}}.
    • Delete Distinct per nom and fix the 3 incoming links. Distinct should not be compared with, or be seen as the same as Distinguish.
    • Delete Didyoumean/Did you mean - not per nom, but because they are not seeing much usage.
    • I did not see any specific arguments against DIST, but {{dist}} also has existed since a decade before DIST, and existed a decade before that (and was deleted) as a template for distance. Today for distance we have {{Metric units of length}} but having just "DIST" is vague, so Delete. Bundle "dist" here, or as a separate nomination.
    • I have not gone through the others yet.
Jay 09:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The others:
    • Weak Delete Do not confuse as created quite recently, although we already had more helpful redirects Nottobeconfusedwith, Not to be confused with, and Not to be confused. Delete Notconfused as without the "to be" it seems to give the opposite meaning of the intended NTCBW.
    • But if we are deleting Notconfused, also bundle Notconfuse and Not confuse, or nominate them as a followup.
    • Also nominate Confuse, Confusing and Confusion, as confusing (pun intended ).
    • I don't know why Distinguishing was created (just last year), which is a longer title than its target. Note that we have templates like {{About-distinguish}} and {{Redirect-distinguish}}, which it could refer to, so I would prefer to Delete it as ambiguous.
Jay 07:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retarget Misspelling to {{R from misspelling}}. Redirect templates and its redirects start with "R" (see Category:Redirect templates), and unless it's an exceptional case, I don't see why a non-R template should redirect to a redirect template, when alternatives exist. On Godsy's {{didyoumean}} suggestion, I was not aware of a {{Did you mean box}}, but it's not used in articlespace, and it wouldn't need shortcuts. While looking at that, I also found a {{New page DYM}} template. Jay 04:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: I share similar sentiments regarding Template:Misspelling and have amended my !vote below; perhaps a return to red is best for it (as with 'distinct'). In regard to the 'dym' redirects, I could see them being used as shortcuts outside of mainspace. That aside, are the 'box' and 'new page' templates related (e.g. is one a shell for the other etc.)? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they seem to be related. Jay 06:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * (alt) in solidarity 21:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electron black hole

[edit]

This phrase has no meaning and is not a term used in sources. The sources in the "Dirac–Kerr–Newman electron model" which discuss applying Kerr-Newman to the electron do not discuss event horizons, the defining feature of black holes. The source Arcos, H.I., Pereira, J.G. Kerr–Newman Solution as a Dirac Particle. General Relativity and Gravitation 36, 2441–2464 (2004) says "Einstein's equation reduces to a naked singularity", meaning no event horizon, meaning not a black hole. I propose we Delete this redirect. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This redirect is very probably inspired by the XKCD article Proton Earth, Electron Moon, and is a plausible search term. However, if the topic isn't covered in any of our articles, the redirect should be deleted - Reissner–Nordström metric covers "Charged black holes", but that may not be close enough. Tevildo (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundle with Black hole electron and discuss. Note that this article was not deleted, but merged to the target at its AfD (same nom). But if Black hole electron is acceptable as a term used in sources, but Electron black hole is not because of the order of the words, then this has not been made evident in the nomination. Jay 04:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose bundling. As a matter of English, an "Electron black hole" is a black hole made of electrons, as in the XKCD article, while a "Black hole electron" is an electron emitted from a black hole, which would suggest Pair production#Astronomy as a target. By all means nominate that redirect, but it needs to be discussed separately. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I had not read the XKCD article from your earlier comment, as I was focussed on the nomination and the part about "This phrase has no meaning ..." If it's not a proper scientific term, it doesn't matter as redirects needn't be scientifically proper. Also, XKCD may not have anything to do with it, as the article is dated 2015 whereas the redirect was created in 2005. The creator created this and Quantum black hole at the same time, as redirects to Micro black hole, but forgot to put the ending square brackets for this, as a result of which another editor "fixed" the malformed redirect by retargeting it to Black hole electron. Jay 19:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      No, a "black hole electron" is not an electron emitted from a black hole. According to our redirect, a "black hole electron" is an electron model based on the classical field theory of spinning charged black holes. As in "the application of theories applicable to black holes to parts of the parameter space matching the properties of electrons", abbreviated.
      This theory cannot produce an black hole in that part of the parameter space, thus electron black hole is not a thing. Furthermore there are not different kinds of black holes depending on content, so "black hole made of electrons" cannot be a thing.
      In my opinion the existence of such redirects excites the natural imagination to fill-in-the-blank as is done above. The actual scientific concepts are very complex and not reducible to three words: we should not have such redirects, they are not encyclopedic material. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I have struck my bundling suggestion above, and will defer to your opinion as expert physicist. What is your opinion about Electron black hole and Quantum black hole that were created as redirects (in 2005) to Micro black hole? Were they being used as casual terms two decades back, or could they have been the result of a teen editor's imagination? Jay 04:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "Quantum black hole" is the name of a Scientific American article that discussed theories three ways to form black holes other than stellar collapse. As far as I know, only the Primordial black hole mechanism is still believed to be possible. But the other two were discussed in reliable sources. That redirect is fine. There are also other reliable sources that use the term "quantum black hole".
      None of this is true for "electron black hole" as far as I know. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 21:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Felony lynching

[edit]

Suggesting delete. The linked section was removed in Special:Diff/1068220894. "Felony lynching" was not a subset of "lynching", making the redirect misleading now that the section has been removed. Jruderman (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The California law that described in the now-removed content is indeed about something other than lynching. There is a brief mention of this type of 'California lynching' at Lynching in the United States § Laws. The term felony lynching is not used in the article prose but doe appear in the headline of one of the sources cited. I didn't review other sources used there but if they give a proper definition of felony lynching, that might be a suitable redirect target with some rewording and perhaps with an anchor. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wine stopper

[edit]

Which is the best target of these targets? Regardless of the outcome, Wine stoppers should be created and target the same page as Wine stopper as {{R from plural}}. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen pizza

[edit]

Pizza has almost no information on frozen pizzas, so we should WP:RETURNTORED this for now. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The single sentence acknowledging their existence ("There are frozen pizzas with raw ingredients and self-rising crusts.") counts as virtually no information on the subject and it's rather surprising that we have no information on a fairly popular preparation, so RETURNTORED definitely applies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this redirect is not deleted, it's probably a {{R with possibilities}}. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mating app

[edit]

Dating apps are not commonly referred to this way. Google search suggests that most uses of this term are for apps for animal mating, which I don't believe we cover anywhere. Rusalkii (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cost (law)

[edit]

Court costs are not the only costs associated with the law. Google search brings up mostly the cost of law schools, but this could also refer to the cost of implementing various laws and any other costs associated with laws or the legal profession, not just court costs.

I have not bundled Law cost with this nomination as the lead suggests that that particular phrase is used to refer to court costs in "English procedure" (not sure if this is meant to be in the UK or in English common law or ?, search is clouded by the cost of law school results). Rusalkii (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again, this is redirect spam and nobody is searching that. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Cost (court) - nom seems reasonable but we do need a parenthetical dab here as no court in the West Indies (or even Commonwealth?) refers to court costs as "court costs" or even "law costs", they're merely referred to as "costs" - (I can {{db-self}} and make the replacement rdr myself, but not sure that's allowed so won't) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those things are allowed, though I don't think Cost (court) works well either for about the same reasons and would also nominate that one for deletion, so I'd suggest letting this RfD finish instead. Just because something is referred to by an ambiguous name in some places doesn't mean we need a parenthetical disambiguator for it - "court costs" is a WP:NATDAB as is for "costs" in the context of the court even if they're not called that everywhere. Rusalkii (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Rusalkii: ahh agreed ty, but a bit lost on how nom rational applies just as much to cost (court) as to cost (law) :/. Is there a parenthetical dab that you'd be okay with for the natural dab "court costs"? (I get that the natdab is sufficient, but I [and maybe others] prefer parenthetical dabs for cleaner code/pipe trick, and unnecessary dabs are in any case harmless/allowed, imo :) .. maybe cost (court costs) works for both of us? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would assume, if this were a thing, that it were a concept in contract, property, or business law, or similar. But I'm not sure this is really distinct from the economic concept, and if there's no evidence that this therm is in use, we should delete it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would have thought this redirect led to something explaining a concept such as the price of speeding tickets, a lawyer, or heck even how taxes and/or fines are used to fund local police forces. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final (court)

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

Anna Cushner

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Taco Casa

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Russian invasion of Crimea

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget one or the other. The invasion is a distinct topic from both the annexation (which followed the invasion) and the occupation (which began with the invasion and continues to the present day). The current redirects are inconsistent. Should they be made consistent, or is there a reason to treat them differently? CosdonH (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC) struck due to violating WP:RUSUKR Duckmather (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target for Russian invasion of Crimea? Also, listed the previous RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 13:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Invert the targets per above. Dudzcar (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

[edit]

The Set-index page target United States strikes on Iran has only one entry that talks about nuclear strikes - 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. All incoming links also refer to the 2025 strikes. There is no article or list entry on US strikes on Iran's nuclear strikes, either for 2026, or before 2025. 2026 Iran war does mention one attack on the Natanz Nuclear Facility. Suggest to retarget to the 2025 article as primary topic (It was also the previous target until 2 hours back), and add a hatnote to Natanz Nuclear Facility § 2026 American-Israeli strikes (or more hatnotes if there were more strikes). Jay 💬 09:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Nom comment): The original RfD had only two entries, and the nomination statement is about the 1st entry - United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, which redirects to a target different from the rest. Jay 💬 03:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If these continue to target the 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites article, I will take the WP:RMUM approach of removing "2025" from its title. However, I am fine with disambiguating the nominated titles between that article and "2026 United States strikes on the Natanz Nuclear Facility" as well as with pointing them to the United States strikes on Iran set index.
(pinging editors who have previously expressed a position on this issue: @Teterev53, @An anonymous username, not my real name, and @Dudzcar) –Gluonz talk contribs 14:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RMUM would not be applicable as the non-2025 title already exists, and the previous RfD which was a request to move back to the (non-2025) original title, closed as "No consensus". Jay 💬 16:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: By that logic, WP:RMUM does not apply to any move that leaves a redirect. "No consensus" means that the stable title should be restored. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I misunderstood No article exists at the new target title as No page exists at the new target title. However, the second point of RMUM is still valid: There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title. There has been discussion (the previous RfD), and there was objection at that RfD. Jay 💬 03:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All page moves that added or removed 2025 (or June 2025) were undiscussed by @ElijahPepe, Iscoak, Jerium, Babysharkboss2, and 9ninety: Was there a RM at that talk page about it? In the last year, Iran–United States war (targets 2026 Iran war) redirected to Iran–Israel war, currently a set index article formerly targeting Twelve-Day War.
My opinion, if people refuse to remove 2025 from the title, there is a reason there is at least a secondary topic, which currently has no hatnote yet. Dudzcar (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It should retain the 2025 in its title per WP:NCWWW, as the year is still a useful identifier for recent events even if it isn't necessary for disambiguation. 9ninety (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike neko

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. My assumption is that this redirect is meant to refer to the subject at Maneki-neko, but I'm not sure of that due to the word "mike" not being mentioned anywhere in that article. Steel1943 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified Talk:Maneki-neko of this discussion: [34]. Steel1943 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The tag notes that this is a redirect from Japanese, and the history indicates that it was mentioned in the article when the redirect was created (2001) and indeed it was in the lead of at the time as Other names include brindle, tricolor cat, mike neko (三毛猫) (Japanese for 'triple fur'), and lapjeskat (Dutch for 'patches cat'). It was Special:Diff/1185929980 by SMcCandlish in 2023 with the rationale "Rm. non-English trivia, per rationale on talk page." (although it had been changed to "mikeneko" at some point prior to then). The talk page rationale is at Talk:Calico cat#Foreign-language terms. It was left a minute before the edit to the article but has attracted no comment in the 2.5 years since then. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep: Mike neko is the Japanese for a calico cat. The lucky cat, maneki neko, is sometimes depicted as a calico cat, but not always. Andre🚐 05:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably true, but it's a WP:FORRED issue without context in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are over 7000 extant languages in the world. We have no need of redirects for foreign-language terms, in every language, to corresponding en.WP articles. We should only retain those which relate directly to extant article text (e.g. because the subject has strong ties to some other language, such as Inuit-language iglu redirecting to the article igloo). In fact we have a need (even asside from FORRED) to not have such redirects: for every 1 mil. encyclopedic subjects of a "generic" nature (not proper names, not highly region- or culture-specific things), there could be up to 7 bil. redirects. While no human would do the work to create them, an AI could certainly do it, and we don't want it to happen. That "those [redirects] which relate directly to extant article text" can be a moving target, resulting in redir creations and deletions over time, is just an operating fact of an online encyclopedia anyone can edit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black pussy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

White spotting gene

[edit]

I keep reading this title, and keep thinking this could also refer to Vitiligo. Delete? Steel1943 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Apparently, this redirect can reference Dominant white or Pinto horse as well, and pretty much any white spotting mutation that is related to the KIT gene in any animal. Steel1943 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a disambiguation page. While the term is most common in reference to cats, the "nominator comment" appears to be correct (though usually in a genetic classifier sense, "white spotting genes", not a reference to a specific gene).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

White (gene)

[edit]

Too ambiguous to have any specific target. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great muscles of the head (cat)

[edit]

The phrase "great muscle" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. In addition, Great muscles of the head was deleted in 2022 via RfD. Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bahubali (2016 film)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 27#Bahubali (2016 film)

Cyclospora

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close; Cyclospora (genus) moved back to Cyclospora

Corporate media

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm not sure that the options on the targeted disambiguation page are particularly helpful, since "corporate media" has an implication distinct from any of them, that being that media providers are owned by for-profit corporate entities, and is therefore biased in favor of political and economic systems that support their profitability. BD2412 T 01:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that right now the situation of this redirect is not ideal, but I think it is more due to the very imprecise and partially overlapping scope of the articles on the dab page. In this light it should probably be kept as is for now, until we have a corporate media article or the scope of the disambiguated pages is precised and we have a clearer target to aim for. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm quite torn and could probably be persuaded to 'delete'. I agree with BD2412 that this has a connotation which is not adequately covered by the dab page entries, although it could be applied to any and all of them. I also agree with Choucas that this the best we've got. Where I disagree is that I'm not so sure an article could be written on this loosely defined, often pejorative term. Given the history of recreation and prior discussions, I don't see cause to do anything else but keep this, even though I find the result rather unsatisfying. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not

[edit]

Odd clipping of the title. Jruderman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep this is odd indeed, but I'm not sure there is actually any benefit to deletion. Every google hit for "correlation does not" is referring to the topic either with the article's exact title or something very similar (e.g. "correlation does not mean causation", "correlation does not equal causation", "correlation does not prove causality", etc) so nobody is getting mislead and it does get uses (18 last year for example). That almost all those users are likely to be picking it from the search dropdown and would have picked the full title instead if the redirect wasn't in place is irrelevant - they get to the exact same article in the exact same number of clicks with no time penalty, so there is no cost to going via the redirect and no benefit to not going via the redirect. The redirect has been vandalised exactly zero times and resulted in exactly zero maintenance burden in its 19 years of existence prior to this RfD, so deletion won't save on that either. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is more plausible than Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Filipinotowns in, but not sure how common redirects from arbitrarily clipped phrases like these are. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a ton of these but I think the standards for keeping would include:
    1. Unambiguously refers to the target
    2. Is a common or plausible shortening
    I'd say (1) is more important and is likely satisfied here. (2) is not satisfied in my view. Even if we are in agreement that this is the only widespread usage, it is not natural to abbreviate the phrase like this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree that those are useful criteria but I would frame them not as requirements for keeping but rather redirects should be deleted (or possibly retargetted) if neither are met. We should only delete redirects if they are harmful in some way, and I've been able to find any evidence of harm here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 03:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese hairstyles

[edit]

Circular redirect from a more broad topic than the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Double decker burgers

[edit]

All variants unmentioned in target list. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned in pages like Big Mac. And they certainly should be. -- Noah Tall (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 02:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddie cocktail

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 27#Kiddie cocktail

Flowery prose

[edit]

"Flowery" is not mentioned in the target article. My understanding is that excessively "flowery prose" may amount to "purple prose", but without this being explcitly stated in the article I think the current redirect is misleading and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:flowerly. I do not believe flowery prose and purple prose are the same thing, as they are only tangentially related concepts. Since there is nothing else on the dab that actually pertains to flowery prose, I think pointing directly pointing towards Wiktionary, which has actually a better definition, is the most useful target available right now. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 02:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hestia Jones

[edit]

No information about this character at the target. Delete this two-sentence unsourced stub in 2005 that lasted for less than a month. There is mention as unsourced entries in two lists, which can be removed. Jay 02:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Casval Rem Daikun

[edit]

I'm not sure of the plausibility of this typo for Char's birth name (it's Casval Rem Deikun, which did not, in fact, exist as a redirect until I created itCasval Rem Deikun), so I'm bringing this here. Funnily enough, this has existed for 21 years, so it's definitely not eligible for R3. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bezek (star)

[edit]

Seems to be another Wikipedia-invented star name that's survived as a redirect. See also BazakBazak, which I've retargeted. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

[edit]

La testa gira

[edit]

A song by three notable artists (no main artist, not a featuring), arbitrary redirecting to one of them.The destination page says nothing about it, as it only lists it in the discography (the Anitta (singer) page is slightly more informative, even if information there is outdated). The song is clearly notable, passes GNG, has been certified gold, and is currently number-one on the Italian hit parade, so I think per WP:REDLINK and WP:R#DELETE#10 (If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.) a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page. Cavarrone 19:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Fred De Palma is listed first among the three artists, which usually means he is most important among them (e.g. it was his idea to make the song, he did the most work on it, etc.) regardless of, usually due to label politics, the other artists receive co-lead credit. This is such a strange thing to take issue with. Practically every other number-one song in Italy or other countries, even ones with multiple lead artists, that don't have an article is a redirect, but this one you nominate? It is still a valid redirect and search term no matter where it points to. The idea that a redlink (when it wasn't even linked from anywhere) encourages article creation more than when an article is a redirect is unfounded. Skyversay (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Practically every other number-one song in Italy or other countries, even ones with multiple lead artists, that don't have an article is a redirect unrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you created other redirects like this involving artists with equal billing and unjustified redirecting to just one of them should likely be deleted as well. Fred De Palma is listed first among the three artists, which usually means he is most important among them... [citation needed]. This is a big claim. Provide evidence De Palma is the main artist of the song, otherwise this is just a personal opinion. It is still a valid redirect and search term no matter where it points to no if the redirect is just created for the sake of it, the destination is essentially arbitrary and misleading (suggesting the readers he was the main artist of the song when he wasn't), and the destination page does not help or provide the readers with the information they expect to find. --Cavarrone 04:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Cratchit.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Charmie Benavidez

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Westbound (song)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 27#Westbound (song)

GCAS

[edit]

Pageviews favor the Global Center for Advanced Studies by approximately 1.7:1. Search results are mostly for a state government agency in Gujarat, with nothing about γ Cas variables. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Argument is valid. But make it a disambiguation. It could also be a Ground Collision Avoidance System, a college in Dublin, and a Global Centre for Advanced Studies. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rosbif73 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Cultural Insitutes

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Financial Law Insitute

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUDIES AND RESERCH, BELAPUR CBD, NEW MUMBAI.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Technodad

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

'66

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

'72

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Herbal wine

[edit]

Versus, for example, grape wine, honey wine, or mulled wine. Do we adequately cover this topic anywhere? Dosoju and sioktong are Korean and Chinese herbal wines respectively; a more general overview has been evasive thus far. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Aromatised wine, which I believe is the same thing. I checked some wine dictionaries, but they do not contain an entry for "herbal wine", and it's not a term used in the "aromatised wine" article. Regardless, an internet search indicates that the term is used to refer to wines flavoured with herbs. Ligaturama (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ligaturama: That is a wonderful find! I was not aware that existed. I am not quite sure though. It is my understanding (from reading) that to be a 'true' herbal wine, the herbs have to be fermented along with the other fruit. Vermouth, for example, would therefore be an 'amortized fortified wine' (and not a herbal wine). Some of the content at the suggested target seems to be describing fortified wine. However, I could be incorrect. We also do not seem to cover medicinal winemedicinal wine on its own at length either. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From that definition it would seem that a herbal wine is a type of aromatised wine: if an aromatised wine is "a wine flavoured with herbs", then even if a herbal wine must be fermented with the fruit, it would still fit that definition. I don't think retargeting would suggest that all aromatised wines are herbal wines.
If you think that herbal wines are legitimately their own separate thing which could justify their own article then the alternative would be deleting the redirect per WP:RETURNTORED. I'd favour the retarget approach because it does still seem to me that herbal wines are aromatised wines. Ligaturama (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was able to find and alluded to earlier. It is not free, but I have a pdf so I will post the excerpts:
  • 3.10. Aromatised Wine [—] Aromatised wine is fortified wine containing alcohol ranging from 14.5-22 per cent by volume, is obtained from wine products to which ethyl alcohol is added and which has been flavoured with natural flavouring substances and/or aromatic herbs and/or spices. The main categories of aromatised wines are: Vermouth ... Sweet vermouth ... Dry Vermouth ... Bitter aromatized wine[.][1]
  • 3.11. Other Wines ... Herbal wine is made by fermenting parts of herbal plants or by adding them as an additional substrate to conventional fruits. Aloe vera wine, sea buckthorn wine, aloe-mint wine, adean berry are a few examples of herbal wines.[2]
— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joshi, V.K.; Ray, Ramesh C., eds. (2021). Winemaking: Basics and Applied Aspects. Food Biology. Taylor & Francis Group. p. 8. ISBN 9781138490918.
  2. ^ ibid.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 11:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcas Meadowes

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

South Coast (wine)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#South Coast (wine)

National Geographic Junior

[edit]

Re-nominating this title here 3 months after previously adding it as part of a multi-prong nomination that was closed as trainwreck. Intrisit (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to National Geographic Kids. Based on everything I can find, this appears to be the Dutch equivalent of National Geographic Kids, however there is no mention of the Netherlands nor of the Kids title at nl:National Geographic Junior despite being interwiki linked with each other. pl:National Geographic Kids does explicitly connect the titles, but the mention of Junior is not sourced. I can't find any connection to News Corporation's cable channels, so keeping is definitely wrong. I think the ideal situation would be to add a mention of the Dutch title to the target, but even without that it's a plausible misremembering of the title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no connection to any of News Corporation's cable channels, just I feel that that editor merely wanted to "score brownie points" with creating really unneeded redirects like this or maybe deceive readers and/or editors that something is/was created for this, when in fact it's not. When you have time post-reading this reply, have a look at his/her contributions page; there you'll get the sense of what he's/she's trying to do and why I'm so eager to have each or all of them gone, however useful and/or legitimate! Intrisit (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the content, not the contributor. We gain nothing by deleting a redirect in order ti just recreate it simply because we dislike what we presume the creator's motive is - especially 3 years after the creation and a year after their last edit. Nobody will be mislead by a retargetted redirect, anyone looking at the history will see the link to this discussion which explains everything. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per @Thryduulf's argument LincolnMagnus (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the nominator's observation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Game One Music

[edit]

Re-nominating this title here 3 months after previously adding it as part of a multi-prong nomination that was closed as trainwreck. Intrisit (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is sourced content about this (as "Game One Music HD", for which this would be a very plausible search term) at fr:Game One. Ideally that content should be translated and added to the target article, and this redirect kept. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock Studios

[edit]

Re-nominating this title here 3 months after previously adding it as part of a multi-prong nomination that was closed as trainwreck. Intrisit (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon fly

[edit]

I think we should discuss this redirect. Salmon fly currently redirects to Artificial fly, but Pteronarcys californica is also known as a salmon fly. What if anything should be done here? I'm totally new, apologize if this isn't right but I'm learning the ropes a bit. 781h (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on refining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wiki/

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

The Gram

[edit]

I don't see this is an alternative name, google search brings to Gram (disambiguation) A1Cafel (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Osakan

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Obadiah Baker (filmmaker)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chickity China, the Chinese chicken

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

July 18

[edit]

Mecha kaiju

[edit]

There is no mention of mecha kaiju in the article. There used to be, but then it was removed. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we not have anything on the general trope of mecha vs. kaiju, as exemplified in Pacific Rim? Mecha has a list item about the film and its sequel, as well as a description of Mechagodzilla as an example of a mecha. It does seem to leave us with an WP:XY problem, though, as there's no real reason the conflict trope should be discussed more in one place than the other—and that's even assuming I'm not misinterpreting the phrase altogether! If the idea is a character that's both mecha and kaiju, I suppose Mechagodzilla is the most prominent example, but presumably not the only one. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nicholas Roman Catholic Church

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Personal accessories

[edit]

Someone searching for this probably wants information on personal accessories, not retailers of it. We lack an article on the subject. The singular form is a redlink. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tahua Capital

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Orini Wildlife Management Reserve

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WestLiquor

[edit]

West Liquor is a brand of The Trusts, although I think its retired now. 'WestLiquor' is not a spelling that is used for the brand. The correctly spelt form doesn't exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Spyda (album)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stacer, Indiana

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Before the article was redirected, there was no reliable source that described Stacer as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources was specifically discussed in the AfD, and the only one which could possibly be relevant is the 1889 county history; and since we can't see what that said, it's not really useful either. Those besides GNIS (which we have been over dozens of times) are the sort of works that don't address the issue well in the first place, or in the case of the shipping guide/gazetteer simply verify that the place was on the railroad. In any case none of the people pushing for the redirect/merge were simply appealing to it as an AtD and not addressing the merits of the sources. I've said over and over that this AtD recommendation has proven to be a bad idea because it's usually the accuracy of the article's characterization of the place that is at issue, not so much notability per se, but this is almost always disregarded by AfD closers, and so here we are. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The original article's "unincorporated community" description is likely an error and in any case isn't supported by reliable sources. All we can be sure of is that there was a Staser/Stacer family and their namsake post office and rail depot, none of which are usually included in Township articles without some amount of in-depth coverage. Here's my pre-RfD source review:
  • 1 - GNIS - Not reliable for "Populated place" designation.
  • 2 - Evansville - Included in "Neighborhoods" list but doesn't mention a community, only a railroad stop and several alternate names for the depor: Nash's Depot, Stacey's Station, Staers, Stacers. I'm skeptical about the appropriateness of this source since it seems to include the author's research notes: "In the 1870s, the railroad stop was called Nash's Depot and Stacers scott - stacer station e&th rr stop post office run by nash? 1858 frederick staser german"
  • 3 - GNIS - Duplicate of #1.
  • 4 - Indiana State Gazetteer (1866-7) - Entry for "Nash Depot" on the Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad, 13 miles North of Evansville. No mention of a community.
  • 5 - Jim Forte's Postal History - Confirms existence of post offices called Nash Depot (1854-1875) and Staser (1892-1920).
  • 6 - History of Vanderburgh County, Indiana: From the Earliest Times to the Present (1889) - Single paragraph about the Staser family, early settlers of Vanderburgh County. Mentions a Staser Homestead but no community.
  • 7 - Exploring Indiana Highways Trip Trivia - The full passage reads "This town was named to honor the family of local luminary Frederick Stacer." I don't think a trivia book is appropriate to include as a source at all, much less the sole reference to describe a place as a community.
I hope this is a good reminder that a thorough source review is necessary. We can't simply point to a number of reliable-sounding sources to make these determinations. –dlthewave ☎ 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So 4,5 and 6 are useful sources that could have been used to add information about Stacer at the target. The fact that it is not a community could be an AfD argument to delete, but not an argument to not merge-and-redirect. If info about a post-office / eponymous family is seen as undue at the target, then that would be a separate argument. Jay 05:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget. We've confirmed there was a post office with this name from 1892-1920, which is a piece of information that can and should be mentioned somewhere (either at the current target or at Vanderburgh County, Indiana where there is still an entry listed under 'unincorporated towns'). -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the desire to mention it somewhere, it's unusual to redirect a place that's not a verified settlement or community. neither article lists current or former post offices or rail depots and adding them isn't common practice. I've removed it from the Unincorporated Towns list in the Vanderburgh County article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be unusual? The fact that a locality had a post office is noteworthy as it demonstrates that it was of enough import to have an official federal government building, which is enough IMO for a mention. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand how the US postal system worked, or for that matter, how it still works in many rural locations. One time when I was in Montana there was a motel we stayed at which had the town post office; it was just a small area in the motel office. I seem to recall another place where it was just a window in a store. And if you go back before RFD, when people had to go to the post office to pick up their mail, there were post offices everywhere: in stores, at nearly every train station, and even just in someone's house where someone agreed to serve as postmaster for a while. These weren't necessarily in a town; sometimes they were, but quite often they were not, because there wasn't any town for them to be in, but people still had to have somewhere to pick their mail. When it was in a house, it was quite common for the post office to change names when it was moved to a different person's place. So no, it demonstrates nothing of the kind. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't refute my point. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. Every locality is important enough to have mail service, so that's not a distinction. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then every locality should be listed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/retarget per Presidentman. Katzrockso (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Do we know for sure that there's a locality of this name in this township? Mentioning past post offices in the township article seems quite reasonable — it's a part of the township's history, after all, and even a Community post office becomes a part of the local identity; the Jacob Rickenbaugh House was such for the locality of Celina in the Hoosier National Forest. However, but without solid evidence for that, we shouldn't go adding it, and if it doesn't get mentioned in the township article. Normally I'd say "have you consulted the printed county history", but someone's already done this; the absence of any reference to a community is a strong argument from silence, since these histories consistently mention every community of any size, even ghost towns. Nyttend (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget I did some further digging and found some additional sources. The two most compelling to me are these articles from an Evansville newspaper from 1897 and 1898. Both of these articles are society pages and list Staser as a separate locality from elsewhere. Another source is the Year Book of the State of Indiana (1919), confirming that there is a post office here. Two more, a soil survey report from 1911 and a U.S. Geographic Board gazetteer both describe Staser as a railroad depot. (The spelling "Staser" seems to be most common in primary sources, not "Stacer" as our redirect would suggest). I think that these sources, combined with those provided above, demonstrate that there indeed was at one time a community called Staser in this county. The redirect there seems worth keeping or possibly retargeting as suggested by Tavix. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Presidentman, have you been able to verify that it was in Scott Township? Unfortunately I'm having issues with loading some of your sources; I think my connection isn't very good. If you can demonstrate that these sources refer to the same location as this redirect does, then I can switch to keep. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      None of my sources specifically state that Staser was in Scott Township. The 1897 article seems to imply this, but it's not explicit. Retargeting to the county article, as suggested by Tavix, may be the ideal solution here. The Year Book, soil survey, and gazetteer all confirm that it was in Vanderburgh County. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      [36] @Nyttend this source does say that the post office was in Scott Township. Katzrockso (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For some reason Google Books won't let me access Katzrockso's source, but since it shows Katzrockso that this location was in Scott Township, and since there's now no question of its actual existence, getting rid of the redirect would be unhelpful. I don't understand why it's missing from the county history, since as I said above, these county histories are generally very careful to include even tiny communities and post offices. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The question has never been whether there was something called "Stacer". The dispute has always been as to whether it was a settlement. People are dragging all sorts of sources here which do not show that: soil surveys do not, post offices do not, station stops on the railroad do not, and people "from" do not. Nobody is producing sources which directly address that question, and thus the best answer we have is that this was a non-notable station stop where there was a post office. Mangoe (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while unmentioned. From this redirect, the reader can conclude that Stacer has something to do with Scott Township. What? Well, we can't even seem to decide on this page, but that's irrelevant, since what matters is whether the reader is provided any information on Stacer at the target. Redirects are not subject to WP:NGEO and so what exactly was at Stacer is academic unless we find the sourcing to add it to the target. Rusalkii (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA Intercontinental Cup final

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Brittany Spears

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

Rock and/or Roll

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kit Bodega

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Mississippian period (North America)

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

Cooking wine

[edit]

Confusing that these redirects target different places, considering both target a wine-related topic and not some title in which WP:DIFFCAPS would apply. Had there not been an edit in either redirect recently, I would have retargeted to Classification of wine § Other styles immediately as the term is mentioned in bold. However, because of this relevant recent edit that refined the uppercase redirect, I'm creating this nomination. (Also since I'm not an expert in anything wine-related.) Note also the existence of the disambiguation page Cooked wine, and Cooking sherry targets Classification of wine#Other styles. Also, Cooking wine was previously an article from 2004 to 2007. Mathguy2718 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Broken up

[edit]

This is a common past tense term for a breakup and there are no sources that say ship-breaking is also called broken up. This should be retargeted to breakup intstead. IShowSammy (discussion | contributions) 18:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The creation of a draft disambiguation page may help with forming consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Caña blanca

[edit]

Adding a mention may be possible. Is this ambiguous with anything else? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think adding a mention really depends on if "Caña blanca" is considered a type of rum or a separate drink. I don't know enough to judge here, and most sources are in Spanish. FWIW, there's also Caña Blanca wildlife sanctuary, and my web searches indicate that there seems to be at least one place in Panama named "Caña Blanca." So a DAB may be a good starting place at the very least. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technolarp

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Glengarry (retailer)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Araminta Melliflua

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Whakamaharatanga, Northland

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kladivo na carodejnice

[edit]

This redirect refers to Kladivo na čarodějnice, which is Czech for Witchhammer, a 1970 Czech film. However, Kladivo na čarodějnice (Czech for The Witches' Hammer) is about a 1963 novel. I will note the film gets significantly more pageviews than the novel. Then again, this redirect and the title of the novel only differ by diacritics, but this redirect has targeted the film for about 16 years and has received hundreds of pageviews without previous objections to this redirect, and there may be a case to move the article about the novel to Kladivo na čarodějnice (novel) (which was the previous title of the article about the novel) and turning "Kladivo na čarodějnice" into a disambiguation page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jumanji: The Lost City

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American football/to do

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WP:AFD redirects not about articles

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Undercover Kitty (film)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Undercover Kitty (film)

Thunder scorpion

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

AI brainrot

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

Mexican beer and lime tradition

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Araparera

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obadiah Baker

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

July 16

[edit]

Paramount Play

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pokémon Vietnamese Crystal

[edit]

UNHAVE MENTION. MENTION HISTORY BAG FUCK AT 2023

MENTION WAS NO STRENGTH

THE TRASHY SOURCING IS AN EYESORE

SHOCK EYE IF INFORMATIO IS NOTHING

(transl.: currently unmentioned, mention was removed in 2023. sources were weak then and no good sources were found now, so the redirect would just be surprising on its own) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. There is a partially sourced mention at Twitch Plays Pokémon#Game completion (second row of season 2), and the sourced part is the part relevant to this redirect. The source describes it as "The Most Infamous Pokémon Bootleg" which seems sufficient to warrant a redirect to the mention we have to me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm admittedly a little iffy on considering that enough. it effectively only describes the intro of the game, making no effort to actually explain why it's so infamous (even though that's a little self-evident, i mean, the game literally refers to getting items as fucking them) or how infamous it is in that regard. it's useful for a short description, but i'd say only on top of something else of actual substance (which is what i couldn't find), and not to warrant this redirect consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nominator is a "little iffy" about retargeting to the proposed target. Further input seems necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so infamous, this seems like a WP:RETURNTORED situation, since the Twitch Plays Pokémon is only incidentally related to this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BET Studios

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Okoo

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Okoo

Surrender of Jinggoy Estrada

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Unrefine/no consensus to delete * Pppery * in solidarity 17:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

$10 Calculator

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Can toi

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Drink shooters

[edit]

Retarget to Miniature (alcohol). In common usage, a "shooter" is a bottle which contains one shot of drink, not the drink itself. (I appreciate this statement is uncited at present). I've not included the plural forms (Shooters (alcohol), etc), pending the result of this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am tempted to suggest one of these redirects (or something similar) might better serve the article as its title. However, I am curious: are these are primarily called shooters outside of American English? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotally, but as a British English speaker I've never heard the word "shooter" used to mean either a shot of alcohol or a bottle containing exactly one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are three separate topics here, but our articles on them might need rearranging.
  1. A single measure of spirits, known (universally?) as a "shot". Our coverage of this is currently at Shot glass, although that article contains the information I expected to find at Shot (drink); I would have expected the "Shot glass" article to be about, well, the glass.
  2. A cocktail (mixed drink) served in a shot glass. Some of these cocktails are known as "<X> shots", some as "<X> shooters", and some (Jägerbomb, Tequila slammer) as neither. Our current Shot (drink) article is basically a list of these cocktails. I note that its original title was Mixed drink shooters and drink shots, which, although verbose, is a much more accurate description of its content.
  3. A bottle containing one shot of drink. These are known in some (but by no means all) parts of the Anglosphere as "shooters". Our coverage of these is at Miniature (alcohol).
I'm not sure what the best venue is to discuss the overall issue, but, for the moment, the only unambiguous meaning of "shooter" is the bottle. Not all the cocktails listed at Shot (drink) are shooters. Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that overview. As for where to discuss, of the articles linked in your comment all but Jägerbomb are tagged by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force, most of them (including Jägerbomb) are also tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirits although both are tagged as inactive, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and Drink appears to be active though. My suggestion would be to start a discussion at one of those venues and advertise it at the other two (as well as anywhere else relevant you can think of), possibly with pings to editors recently active at the articles. As for the redirect, whatever we do here (and I'm torn between recommending the status quo or retargetting to the bottle) should be explicitly without prejudice to that discussion and its outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with the overview too, though I don't think it follows that the bottle is a good target for the (beverage) or (drink) redirects, at least. I'd call milk or juice a drink or beverage, but not the carton or jug it comes in. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier Islands, New Zealand

[edit]

Someone searching for 'Barrier Islands' presumably wants information on more than a single island. There are only two Barrier Islands in New Zealand and no shared article exists on it. A disambiguation page might work? But I imagine anyone wanting one of two islands would just search for it individually. See https://teara.govt.nz/en/auckland-places/page-3 Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a disambiguation page at Draft:Barrier island (disambiguation) Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked that dab but I do support it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter whisky

[edit]

Not covered at the target. Added flavorings are only covered basically in the 'Flavours and colouring from additives section. Same case for Blended whiskey#Ingredients and uses. Whisky is not mentioned at Flavored liquor except in a section heading. We do not seem to cover any of the prominent brands of this that I am aware of (e.g. 'Screwball'). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rukumoana

[edit]

Rukumoana is a separate settlement to Morrinsville, no mention of it in the article either. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pla nang

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Collapse of the the Soviet Union

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Caillou characters with surnames

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Buses in WA

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rocket in My Pocket (1958 song by Jimmy Lloyd)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Karusel (hypermarket chain)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Payback (company)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 23#Payback (company)

S-Budget

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nickelodeon (Western European TV channel)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nickelodeon Iberia and Nickelodeon Spain and Portugal

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 23#Nickelodeon Iberia and Nickelodeon Spain and Portugal

Unwinnable

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Unrefine * Pppery * in solidarity 17:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COMPLETELIST

[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Complete list, a disambiguation page between two user essays on the same topic, neither of which are obviously more well-regarded than the other (although note that I wrote the other one). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief, here is my retarget edit message from recently:

I'm pretty sure most people (everyone?) uses WP:COMPLETELIST to refer to the Elli essay, even still, and I don't think there's any rule that says we can't have aWP:SHORTCUT to a user essay, so this fixes those links.

I don't think being well-regarded really affects that, imo. I also noticed the essays are technically differently titled and thus I created WP:COMPLETELISTS for yours, so the two essays can be equally alike in dignity that way. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not remember the circumstances surrounding that MfD discussion (even though I started it) and situation. Perhaps Tavix remembers the situation at the time which revolved around RfD (as the user who moved the page; from reading the MfD, I am sure that I likely very much would have approved of their action at the time)? Crouch, Swale has a technical point, but I oppose a return to projectspace in practice given the tacit consensus against that essay which apparently evolved from this venue. I am disinclined to agree with Dingolover6969 that anyone associates this shortcut with User:Elli/Complete list except during that brief historical blip. 'WP:' shortcuts are generally ambiguous in one way or another and may (certainly) target userspace essays; generally, I would be inclined to oppose retargeting in such a case. However, in this case I lean towards retargeting it to the dab given the dubious nature of the original opinion. The ~4 links (all at RfD; three from 2021 and one in 2025), the only extant instances of it outside of this discussion, can be easily remedied to point to User:Elli/Complete list. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Given the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Complete list, I agree with Crouch, Swale that the solution would be to move User:Elli/Complete list back to Wikipedia:Complete list. -- Tavix (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How does moving resolve the issues in the nomination? Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Duck sex

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Andrew Kirke

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

"virtual hardware"

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Virtual operating system

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 23#Virtual operating system

Portland Thorns–Seattle Reign rivalry

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

July 15

[edit]

Balfoer

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Asimo3089

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Aung Kyaw-47

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

-osu!-

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:"My Pussy In Bio" bots

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Waihou Marae

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Yugoslavic Cartesian Bitmapping

[edit]

Huh? 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:灣

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Draft:灣

Waitāruke Marae

[edit]

Was mentioned at target but I removed the mention as the building is located at Waitaruke (no article), there is mention but both are trivial and unsure which if any would be appropriate Traumnovelle (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kahukura Ariki (Kaeo whare)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kyselina jantarova

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 23#Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE

KidzSearch

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Windsor line

[edit]

Not convinced this is the primary topic. Web searches favor the railways. DrKay (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per all of the above. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman: Slap Flap, and Go!

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Rayman: Slap Flap, and Go!

Waimako Marae

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to List of marae in Hawke's Bay * Pppery * in solidarity 17:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jewnited Snakes

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Irish, The, (in countries other than Ireland)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Euphorbia inermis

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Welcome-uk

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Chicken roll

[edit]

From my (admitted biased irish opinion) Chicken roll always refers to a Chicken fillet roll, and I think a redirect there would be more fitting Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender (2011 film)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Marcus Flint

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tom the barman

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep * Pppery * in solidarity 17:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waiotemarama

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Asocial aggression

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Spotted lizard

[edit]

The word "spotted" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chipkali

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Chipkali

Taemāro

[edit]

Was mentioned at target but i removed it as its located in Taemaro, not Mangonui. There are two other mentions on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22taem%C4%81ro%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 but I am unsure which if any are an appropriate target.

The locality (and bay) with this name are probably the more likely thing people are searching for instead of an eponymous marae (meeting house) Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit cosmetic quality

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kahukura Ariki

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Te Aroha (Ōtangaroa whare)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Inflammatory language

[edit]

Inflammatory language does not meet the definition of the article lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

keep you know what, I read the loaded language article and this is a subtype of that. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to abusive language, which is a dab page. Then the reader is free to read about several different topics which are all inflammatory. Seems like the best choice since there's no clear primary target. pburka (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically it's only a draft of a disambiguation page, with its own ongoing RfD item below. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I hadn't read the tags carefully when I was saw it on mobile. I still think a dab page makes the most sense, whether it's that one or something else. pburka (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Inflammatory language is not necessarily abusive. For example, inflammatory language (or rhetoric) in politics may rile up the base or anger the other side without being abusive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There's no point sending a term for something that is only somewhat like abusive language to a dab for things that might be referred to as "abusive language", unless the two terms are ambiguous the same way. After all, once you get to the dab, if there were an "inflammatory language" page you could click on, we'd just target that! (P.S. there is such as page and it's loaded language.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, but we have a lot of flexibility to redefine the scope of disambiguation pages: e.g. "Abusive or inflammatory language may refer to..." pburka (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the other discussion, I support Abusive language as a disambiguation page. I'd agree with retargeting this there. If that discussion goes another way... not sure, I'll revisit this one. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts now that Abusive language exists?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per WP:DABCOMBINE. ~2026-39948-33 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support dabcombine as nominator. I disagree with keeping it due to being 'cheap' though. I nominated it because I found it misleading, whether or not its easy to maintain a redirect is irrelevant to that notion. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "CHEAP" is a terrible rationale when the concern is that the redirect is erroneous, misleading, etc. As for the rest of this discussion, I still favor deletion. Inflammatory language is sometimes synonymous with some of the entries on the Abusive language dab page but what is still missing is the primary meaning[37][38] which is language that may 'inflame' tensions but is not necessarily abusive. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Higher brain function

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sweet wine

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Target both to Sweetness of wine * Pppery * in solidarity 17:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Independence

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Restoration of Independence

Avery Coonley

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Avery Coonley

July 14

[edit]

Peria, Waikato

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

Camels in Fremantle

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Camels in Fremantle

's

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete all except EU's and FIFA's on which there is no consensus without prejudice against individual renomination.

colo(u)red fire

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Flame#Color * Pppery * in solidarity 17:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

[edit]

There's no obvious reason for this to point to Part 1 rather than the film series as a whole, a production-related page, or a disambiguation. The current target was an apparently unilateral change in 2024. It's listed on WP:Partially disambiguated page names, but without a pageview ratio. O.N.R. (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Liptser (disambiguation)

[edit]

No need for this, as I BLARed the page LiptserLiptser to Robert Liptser, and I wasn't sure if this met any of the CSD. 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2030 Winter Olympics

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Refine

Mormoni

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bischofsheim-Rumpen. station

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

USHER

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Preaching

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Preaching

Wallfish

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Subumbrans

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lithosperma

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Services for Young People in Surrey County Council

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Brush Curber

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

tribal rhythm(s)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Indonesian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Indonesian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

Template:Archive.org

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Fitba

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

Involuntary celibacy

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep * Pppery * in solidarity 20:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neimodian Transport

[edit]

"Neimodian Transport" not mentioned at target. Also includes a typo, it should be "Neimoidian". Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I imagine the original user was refering to the banking clan transport, but unless "neimoidian transport" is shown to be be an actual alternate name then we should just get rid of the redirect LincolnMagnus (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Banking Clan Transport

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Banking Clan Transport

SMTS

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#SMTS

Sea beard

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

Rotgut

[edit]

No mention of "Rotgut" in either article except a "See also" entry. As such, I propose deleting all of these redirects as confusing for readers except Rotgut, which I propose disambiguating between Mit Gas and List of Ace Lightning characters in accordance with this search. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Smith (supercentenarian)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Alfred Smith (supercentenarian)

Slight Risk Of Severe Thunderstorms

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 20:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mob justice

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to Jungle justice * Pppery * in solidarity 20:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LLMCIR

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 20:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Bulstrode

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 21#Millicent Bulstrode

StreN

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

I don't fucking play Roblox

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Judo at the 19722 Summer Olympics - Men's open category

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: deleted

July 12

[edit]

Samogonka

[edit]

Unmentioned at the target, Prohibition in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, or elsewhere. wikt:samogonka is a possibility. Moonshine by country#Russia exists with a mention of the synonym that one of these terms points to at wikt, but does not mention these either. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy is your preferred outcome deletion or retargetting, and if so where? Rusalkii (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Relist it once; let's see if we encourage some input. Largely undecided. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: What now? Jay 02:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget samogonka to wikt:samogonka; soft delete samohonka. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Forgot ping above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Actually, retarget samohonka to wikt:samohonka. Can you relist this once more, but bundle in samohonsamohon, which should be deleted. Proper samogonsamogon exists and serves well enough. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

License to Kill (film)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Choop

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

La testa gira

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 19#La testa gira

Gorilla War

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Binky (Harry Potter)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nisbet, Indiana

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2027 Women's Cricket Olympic Qualifier

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Bolso

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 26#Bolso

Illegal whiskey

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 21#Illegal whiskey

William Kostric

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ali Haha

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Canada in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22#Canada in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026

Nambung Station via Cervantes, Western Australia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 24#Nambung Station via Cervantes, Western Australia

Shimbun Kyoto

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lilla My

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

Wiki.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 19#Wiki.

Wiki/

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 19#Wiki/

The Gram

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 19#The Gram

July 10

[edit]

D−

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to D- * Pppery * in solidarity 21:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

E−

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 21#E−

Help:Reference

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 13#Help:Reference

Raccoon Gang

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WP:AFD redirects not about articles

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#WP:AFD redirects not about articles

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep * Pppery * in solidarity 21:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scramogue

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 21:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stord (disambiguation)/Moster FK

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Double decker burgers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 20#Double decker burgers

Zebra Monster

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Roblox Rant Restoration Movement

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Undercover Kitty (film)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#Undercover Kitty (film)

Phineas Nigellus

[edit]

No information about this character at the target. There is mention in multiple other articles, of actors who have played the character, and it won't be fair to single out any for retargeting. In the Fictional universe of Harry Potter, his mention is as an example. Delete to favour search results. The pages have history though. Jay 12:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Abdul Samad

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural keep

Thunder scorpion

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#Thunder scorpion

Genoveva Castellanoz

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tresovice

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * in solidarity 21:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kefling

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Strazne

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate * Pppery * in solidarity 21:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally Tennis U.S.A.

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cississippi

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dusniky

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 21#Dusniky

Mohamed Fawzy (Fottpaller)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

DougDougDoug

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete both * Pppery * in solidarity 21:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read-headed slut

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

AI brainrot

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#AI brainrot

Verde hand grenade

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 21:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican beer and lime tradition

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#Mexican beer and lime tradition

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1366375896#Current_list"