The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kasethan Kadavulada (upcoming film) → Kasethan Kadavulada (2023 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It has been almost two years since the film released. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is still getting multiple tens of hits every day, so it is very clearly still useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it’s somewhat misleading. Looking on Google, I found very few matches of this term online, so clearly most of the pageviews aren’t coming from people following links to Wikipedia. The pageviews likely come from people typing “ Kasethan Kadavulada” into the search bar, seeing “Kasethan Kadavulada (upcoming film)” in the search results, expecting a new film, and then getting redirected to a film that’s already been made. Fails the principle of least astonishment. Additionally, this could refer to any of the three films listed at Kasethan Kadavulada (disambiguation) while they were still being made. If this is kept, it should be redirected to the dab page, as all three films were “upcoming” at some point. Plant🌱man (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Off-TV Play#List of Off-TV Play compatible software. Giving this some thought, I'm going to be a bit WP:IAR/WP:BOLD here prior to this discussion fork getting larger since the applicable section exists, the current target was the result of a bad bot edit (possible WP:TROUT to the nominator for not mentioning and/or noticing this), and this redirect will almost be guaranteed to be affected by the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-TV Play in one way or another. May consider renominating this after the aforementioned AfD concludes. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Wii U games supporting Off-TV PlayList of Wii U games supporting Off-TV Play → Wii U GamePad#List of Off-TV Play compatible software  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no section about "wii u games supporting off tv play" at the directed article. TzarN64 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Off-TV Play#Games, provided that article still exists when this RfD is closed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-TV Play). Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...In fact, I think this discussion may need to be put on hold until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-TV Play completes since this RfD discussion is potentially premature since its result potentially depends on another discussion to complete first. Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect with the correct link target, but a bot re-redirected it to the wrong article, see version history. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Orlik (armoured train)Orlik (armoured train) → Zaamurets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While the traincar Zaamurets was a part of the armored train Orlik for most of its existence, they are two distinct entities. On German Wikipedia and Wikidata, they have separate entries. As such, this redirect should undergo WP:RTR. CitrusHemlock 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is useful information in the current target. Remove the self-redirect at the target. There are no incoming links in any articles, I don't see a redlink will help. I have tagged the redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. Deleting the redirect and having readers rely on search results is not efficient as "Orlik" is an ambiguous term, as seen at Orlik. Jay 💬 16:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikimedia BrasilWikimedia Brasil → List of Wikimedia chapters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, due to criteria 10, it has no content about the chapter and worse, the new item Brazil should link to a red article to get people to create an article for that, but instead it redirects to same page. Augustresende (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think this deletion nomination is valid. The target article mentions Wikimedia Brasil so it's definitely a reasonable search term. If you want to expand the redirect into an article, be bold. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Criteria 10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Augustresende (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed it at the target by removing the self-redirect. Note that the self-redirect was created by nom a few minutes before making this nomination. Jay 💬 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bare entry in a list is not really enough substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per pppery, at least for now. if it can be elaborated on, i wouldn't oppose recreating. i thought the redirect would have been spelled wrong, with it being referred to as "wikimédia" or "wikimídia" in brazil, but nah, it's actually just "wikimedia". wacky~ consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect does not meet Criteria 10 because it directs people to an in-context list, from where people are directed to the local language article if they wish to learn more. People are not being directed to a useless or frustrating page (which is what Criteria 10 seeks to avoid). It serves an appropriate function, and it is used - not much to be fair, but over 300 times, so it evidently serves its purpose of directing people to where they can find information about what they are looking for. The bulk of the Wikimedia chapters in the list do not have an article on the English Wikipedia, so most have a redirect to the List_of_Wikimedia_chapters. I don't think we should randomly pluck out one country from that list article and delete the redirect which will guide people toward the appropriate article. We could decide that we don't want to provide assistance to readers to find information on other language chapters, and so delete all the redirects, but I don't see that as being helpful either. In short, this is an appropriate and in-use redirect which guides people to a useful list from where, if they wish, they can go to the local language article. SilkTork (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SilkTork and the many other similar redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it includes helpful links, even though it is a single entry. People looking for more info on Wikimedia Brasil will undoubtedly find what they are looking for. I fixed one of the links that didn’t work btw. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Consider it a "soft delete" of the stub article; anyone who thinks the subject is notable and should be made into an article can go ahead and do that. asilvering (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vonk (Netherlands) → Revolutionary Communist International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Multiple organisations have had the name "De Vonk". One of them was at some point I guess mentioned on the target page, but not any more. The more prominent uses of the name however have nothing to do with the target page. This combination is very confusing. Dajasj (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was BLARd as a declined PROD. Jay 💬 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD as a contested BLAR and contested PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that the status quo is confusing. Sorry, but this is inappropriate to restore without a secondary source. Also, the article was redirected with the PROD still active, so I would not characterize that as a "declined PROD" (courtesy ping to Cavarrone in case they want to confirm or deny). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I should have said "contested" PROD, as Thryduulf did. Jay 💬 19:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't characterize a redirection as a contested PROD either. If someone is redirecting an article, they would naturally agree with the prodder that there shouldn't be an article at that title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They might agree there shouldn't be anything at that title, but equally they might not. Certainly there have been occasions when I've redirected active PRODs that I was thinking "a redirect is better than deletion, but deletion is better than an article" and also occasions when I've thought that "a redirect is better than an article, but an article is better than deletion". If the redirect isn't appropriate, which I agree it isn't, then it needs discussion. It has been prodded once, so can't be prodded again. That leaves AfD or leaving it as is, and on this occasion I think AfD is the better of those two options. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The place to discuss whether or not a redirect is appropriate is RfD. We're having the exact discussion you wish to have right now! -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Tavix is right about his interpretation of my 13-years-old BLAR. I agreed with prodder about the lack of individual notability, but I just (boldly, and arguably mistakenly) considered redirecting the page to the relevant section in the parent article as a better alternative. At the time I certainly was not aware that multiple organizations shared the same name and that the redirect would turn to be ambiguous. As for now, as long as "Vonk" is not even mentioned in the target page and the relevant section do not even exist anymore, personally I don't see the point in restoring an unsourced one-sentence stub and sending it to AfD solely on procedural grounds when everyone involved agrees about its lack of notability. Cavarrone 22:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current situation is borderline "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to waste time on an AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. No prejudice against dab creation in the future if we get more content about the US chain. asilvering (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pet SupermarketPet Supermarket → MedicAnimal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There's a chain of pet stores in the United States called "Pet Supermarket", which I'm wagering is an entirely different organization than the (former?) UK chain that this redirects to the purchasers of. This link should either be disambiguated or redlinked with Pet Supermarket (UK) linking to MedicAnimal. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Am I understanding you correctly in assuming one of the options you are proposing is that the nominated redirect be deleted and then Pet Supermarket (UK) be created? If so, that causes essentially a WP:PRECISE issue since the disambiguated version of the title "Pet Supermarket" would exist but the non-disambiguated version would not, which would almost be guaranteed to result in this nominated redirect being recreated anyways Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, keep per my above comment and there being no other articles to disambiguate against that have been identified yet. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment though it falls under, IMHO, WP:EASTEREGG as I suspect most viewers searching for "Pet Supermarket" will not be expecting the UK store. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Pet Supermarket" is also mentioned at Roark Capital Group#Current investments. Dunno if that's what The Bushranger is referring to. it's lio! | talk | work 08:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the U.S. chain I'm referring to, yeah. @Steel1943:, would having Pet Supermarket (UK) (to Pet Supermarket's current target) and Pet Supermarket (US) to Roark Capital Group#Current investments (the latter, at least, as {{R with possibilities}}) as redirects be enough for this to be a dab? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough substance on either store at either target to warrant a redirect. Roark Capital Group#Current investments is a spammy mess that I'm tempted to delete entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation page that says "MedicAnimal, business owning UK stores named Pet Supermarket" and "Roark Capital Group, business owning US stores named Pet Supermarket". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Bushranger, Steel1943, and Pppery: thoughts on disambiguation? (pinging all for consistency) it's lio! | talk | work 08:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dab would be ideal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel. Revisit when we have sufficient content about the US chain. The investments of Roark Capital Group is not an appropriate redirect target for the chain, nor a disambig entry. Jay 💬 11:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel. There isn't sufficient content about the US chain for a dab mention, so we do what we usually do when we have content about exactly one encyclopaedic use of a term: treat it as if it's the only encyclopadic use of the term until content about other uses is written. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close an old log day. As a reminder, per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. asilvering (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CackalackyCackalacky → Carolinas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is currently useless because the article does not contain this word, and so gives no explanation as to why the redirect exists. Either a section should be added to the article explaining nicknames, or the redirect should be deleted as useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found a couple of sources attesting to the nickname, but it looks like the primary topic for this phrase may actually be a brand of food products mentioned on a couple articles. None of the articles seem to give much information on the brand, so I think a redlink is best here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any thoughts on the page history? This was created in 2006. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content was merged to the target and I have tagged this as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dresden+files → The Dresden Files  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Heliotrope+(color) → Heliotrope (color)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Moving+Sands → Moving Sands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pandora's+jar → Pandora's box  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Spin+torque+transfer → Spin-transfer torque  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Track+day → Track day  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Vision+art → VisionArt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• World+of+Darkness+Online → World of Darkness  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Similar to Nahuatl+languages+language, nominated this day, all of these redirects seem to be unlikely/confusing URL search terms where the target has no affinity to any variations of the title of each individual nominated redirect when the title contains plus symbols (+). Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and the Nahuatl entry. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These seem silly. Paul August ☎ 01:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, and as being unlikely search terms (which is indicated by the nonexistent pageviews). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This type of search was used with older computers—I recall the TRS-80 card catalogue at the library referring to boolean operators—and may still have seemed potentially relevant in 2008, but it has long been obsolete, and it isn't likely to be used by our readers. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbal ASE → Hazbin Hotel#Fandom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unmentioned at target. Compare Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_21#VerbalAse. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the previous RfD. Silcox (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of the YouTuber in the article at all and his association with the show is incredibly minimal. Blubewwy (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Synapson. After this redirect (and Verbalase redirect) got created by me, the mention of this person at Hazbin Hotel#Fandom had since been deleted. However, as the mention of the person is still on Synapson article. It could be the target of the redirects instead. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 18:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to VerbalASE from there is so tangential it might as well be considered WP:ASTONISHING. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DZYTDZYT → Sonshine Media Network International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• DYKZDYKZ → Brigada Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This list was redirected at AfD back in 2021 At the time, there was a "Bandera News Philippines" section. at time DYKZ does not appear the station. 112.207.123.170 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I didn't understand the nomination though. Jay 💬 15:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cancer de Esofago → Esophageal cancer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Bot-created version of an already deleted equivalent with accents. Obviously inappropriate FL redirect. — Anonymous 14:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RFOREIGN Plant🌱man (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Cáncer de Esófago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nahuatl+languages+language → Nahuatl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely redirect due to the pluses in combination with the plural form followed by the singular form of "language". Steel1943 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely copied from a google search; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 28#The+hands+that+rock+the+cradle. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Enix150 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep in mind that even the "+"->" " version, Nahuatl languages language, would STILL be a implausible redirect due to the added "language" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Matangirau → Kaeo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:REDLINK Matangirau is a distinct place from Kaeo and doesn't have any connection (it is located closer to Whangaroa than Kaeo) nor is it discussed (nor should it be) at the Kaeo article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pack the Court → Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Court packing has established that the redirect "Packing the court" should be deleted to foster the creation of an article on the wider (i.e. non-U.S.-specific) concent of packing a court. Given the similarities of the phrases Packing the court and Pack the Court, I believe that this redirect should be deleted per the consensus at the aforementioned RfD. Silcox (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Recreate as a redirect to Packing the court when that article exists. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yep, missed that one. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is kahani ke sabhi patra kalpanik hain → Fictitious persons disclaimer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Weak delete by virtue of being a relatively low-traffic RFOREIGN. The redirect title is the Hindi transliteration of a portion of the disclaimer, and the redirect target doesn't really talk about the disclaimer in a Hindi or Indian context. Silcox (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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