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. All transclusions have been corrected. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Des → Template:Short description  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created redirect. Per Template:Short_description#Aliases these are actually harmful to the project and require a lot of overhead to make things work. Editors wishing to add short descriptions to articles should take the 1 minute to read this instead of creating new redirects. Gonnym (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Aliases for Short description template and "Des" being an ambiguous and unintuitive abbreviation of "Short description". Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Thryduulf.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:39, 16 August 2024 (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 Ontario Highway 407. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Highway 407Highway 407 → List of highways numbered 407  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Looking at the history of this page, there has been a debate on whether or not Highway 407 should redirect to Ontario Highway 407 (which was the case until ~20 mins earlier, and 10 years before that) or the List of highways numbered 407. It's been going back and forth at least twice. In fact, I recently changed the target to Ontario Highway 407, before being redirected back to the list. Therefore, I need to see if this should be (re)targeted to the highway in Canada (which may be the primary topic?) or kept at its current target (the list). Again, the history of the redirect page is why I took it to RFD. JuniperChill (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ontario Highway 407. Literally 100% of the results on at least the first six pages of results when Googling for "Highway 407" -Wikipedia are for the Canadian road. Even searching for "Highway 407" -Wikipedia -Canada -Toronto -Ontario -ETR 100% of the results on the first two pages are for this road - even some of the results for "Highway 407" Louisiana -Wikipedia" are for the Ontario highway. This is one of the clearest primary topics I've ever seen. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ontario Highway 407 per Thryduulf as the primary topic. C F A 💬 18:43, 16 August 2024 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender-neutral games and toys → Toy#Gender  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

About a day or so ago, sort of as a temporary measure until I could figure out a better course of action with this redirect, I had refined this redirect to Toy#Gender from Toy due to believing the base title not being adequate for explaining this redirect. However, I just realized that due to the fact the word "games" is in this redirect, the redirect's title seems to be an incorrect connection to its target due to potential WP:XY issues since the target is about toys and not games. At this point, I'm thinking deletion is the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We ought to have some content about this, given the existence of Boys' toys and games and Girls' toys and games. Gender neutrality#Children's toys is similar to the current target. I'm wondering about a disambig/broad concept article? The existence of Toys and games in ancient Rome also points to "toys" and "games" being highly plausible combined search terms. Let Toys Be Toys is also relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A 💬 20:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be an article, but, barring that, delete as no good target. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What Queen of Hearts said. Jay 💬 16:22, 26 August 2024 (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• E610 → Bhopal disaster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as LG Optimus L5, Orange SPV and South African Class 5E1, Series 2. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is one for the search engine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be best to turn it into a disambiguation page that links to those other articles. Luvcraft (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Search finds these uses among other less useful results: lists that mention the LG Optimus, and various pages where references contain the string "E610" in page numbers or URLs. Peter James (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could also represent a chemical with the E number "E610", but it doesn't seem as though any chemical has been assigned this E number yet. Steel1943 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per above. It could also refer to a road in the International E-road network or United Arab Emirates, but E610 doesn't appear (from our article) to have been assigned in either place (although both have E611 roads). Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Footer Olympic Champions C-1 SlalomTemplate:Footer Olympic Champions C-1 Slalom → Template:Footer Olympic Champions Men C-1 Slalom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It is unclear why this should redirect to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Men C-1 Slalom and not to Template:Footer Olympic Champions Women C-1 Slalom which is available since 2020. Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - This appears to be the original title of the template it points to. I presume the women's event was started in 2020 or not covered until then. Template shortcuts are very often ambiguous. As they are for editors (not readers), this does little harm. Weak because I am sympathetic to the nominators point. If this were in the mainspace a disambiguation would very much be due; however, such an action is not appropriate for a template redirect and I do not support deletion (because ambiguity is not grounds to delete a shortcut). There is also no benefit of obscuring the page history through deletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2024 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neo-newtonian → Spacetime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Neo newtonian → Spacetime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This isn't explained at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: term is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I see too many varied usages in sources for it to be targeted to any specific one. This use case certainly isn't the first I would suggest. If they had to go anywhere, I would think Newtonian would make the most sense, but without the wider usage on site it feels like keeping them for the sake of keeping. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Newtonian as an ambiguous term: seems to be used ([1][2][3][4], etc.). A mention may be warranted somewhere. C F A 💬 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per QuietHere; not mentioned anywhere. Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. May be added when we have mention somewhere. Jay 💬 16:26, 26 August 2024 (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 those suggested to retarget, delete the rest. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bionic BunnyBionic Bunny → List of Arthur characters#TV stars and merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Dark BunnyDark Bunny → List of Arthur characters#TV stars and merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Mary Moo-Cow → List of Arthur characters#TV stars and merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• The Bionic Bunny ShowThe Bionic Bunny Show → List of Arthur characters#TV stars and merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Wilbur Rabbit → List of Arthur characters#TV stars and merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Left notice about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Arthur-related redirects for discussion. Couldn't do it the usual way, because that assumes an AFD. If someone else can figure out how to do this better, please do. - dcljr (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target of all of these related redirects is a section that no longer exists in the target article. (These are all related to fictional characters or works within the fiction of the show itself — hence doubly fictional, which presumably is why the content didn't survive.) There doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the main Arthur (TV series) article, either. Nor in Marc Brown (author), our article for the author of the Arthur books. Propose deleting these unless some other appropriate target can be found. - dcljr (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Bionic Bunny and Dark Bunny to List of fictional rabbits and hares#Animation where they are mentioned. Delete the others as there doesn't appear to be a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of The Bionic Bunny Show is Bionic Bunny, so maybe also redirect that one to the same target? - dcljr (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2024 (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 11:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chilodontidae-stub → Template:Chilodontaidae-gastropod-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused. Chilodontidae is a former spelling (now regarded as incorrect) for a gastropod family. Chilodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family. See the Chilodontidae dab page. Template redirect uses the spelling for the fish family to redirect to a stub sorting template for the gastropod family Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean that Chilodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes. Fixed the spelling above. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a confusing redirect, per above. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as potentially misleading. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:57, 16 August 2024 (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 Trumpism. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for President Donald Trump by white AmericansSupport for President Donald Trump by white Americans → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#Supporter demographics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• White support for Donald TrumpWhite support for Donald Trump → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#Supporter demographics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• White support of donald trumpWhite support of donald trump → Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#White nationalists and white supremacists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Couple of concerns with these redirects' wordings:

• It's odd that a redirect with this phrasing targets 1 of 4 presidential campaign pages related to Donald Trump running for president. How can there be any guarantee readers searching this phrase are looking for this target?
• Specific to the current target, the first redirect contains the phrase "President Donald Trump"; Donald Trump was not a President until after the 2016 campaign.

Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Racial views of Donald Trump would be a better target? Nightscream (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. The redirects allude to groups of people who support for Donald Trump, not Donald Trump's views that could potentially be racist. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Trumpism to match Support for Donald Trump, etc. White support in particular is discussed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:37, 8 September 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Toad TownToad Town → Mario (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: appears to be used frequently and is pointed to the appropriate target. C F A 💬 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting terms to articles where the term is not mentioned is confusing to readers. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to my knowledge, it only really ever pops up with this exact name in the rpgs (and the movie), and seems more closely associated with paper mario than mario & luigi. not sure if that warrants keeping, but i'll go with an overwhelmingly strong eh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Biden crisisBiden crisis → Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I feel like there are a lot of sorts of things one might expect to see when they search this term (for example, Mexico–United_States_border_crisis#Biden_administration or 2023 United States banking crisis, or any other "crisis" during the administration might be sought), and I don't suspect that any particular one is the WP:PTOPIC. I think that this should either be disambiguated or deleted, as I don't think the current redirect can be justified absent a primary topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the current target smacks of WP:RECENTISM and there is no clear alternative. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looking at Presidency of Joe Biden there are many things that have been called a crisis during his term in office that could be referred to (especially by political opponents) as "Biden crisis" but this is by far the primary topic. Is that recentism? It's too soon to know! What we do know is that people using this search term now are overwhelmingly going to be looking for the current target. If that changes in the future we can reevaluate the redirect at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too many storms in a teacup were called the Biden crisis. There's no clear target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reliable sources called it "Biden crisis", eg: NPR: "'We can't catch a break.' How the Biden crisis looks from the inside", Politico: "Pelosi privately fields battleground Dem calls as she works to address Biden crisis", Axios: "Trump rally shooting upends Democrats' Biden crisis", UK Channel 4: Biden crisis: supporters question President’s future as he pledges to continue - all in headlines. If you broaden the search to "Biden's crisis" even more results for the same topic appear. It's also worth noting that Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election was originally created with the name "Biden crisis" before the withdrawal was actually confirmed by Biden. BugGhost🦗👻 16:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I was about to nominate this myself a few days ago, but then changed my mind since apparently, the redirect may be an alternative name for the target per sources. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not adequately sourced enough, the term "It's Joever" was actually used far more to refer to Biden's diminishing capacity to win the election in the months before his withdraw than "Biden crisis." Biden crisis can refer to a bunch of things. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @HadesTTW - Regarding Not adequately sourced enough - I have posted several sources above that use the term - could you expand on why these aren't adequate? They're pretty well respected news sources and they use the term in their headlines to describe this event BugGhost🦗👻 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per CycloneYoris, the term isn't adequately sourced. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  CycloneYoris has not commented on this, they just relisted it BugGhost🦗👻 19:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the "not adequately sourced" arguments, given that Bugghost presented more than adequate evidence that the term is used by reliable sources? Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This is just sealioning a pro-trump phrase in, so that it can be linked as 'accepted'. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? Redirects exist to take people from search terms they are likely to use to the content they are looking for when using that search term. We do this regardless of why they might be using the term. Deleting a redirect simply because it is used by one politician would be a massive failure of WP:NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 'Biden crisis'. To create one could be read as (and will be used as) "Wikipedia describes and confirms Biden's Crisis". Which is definitely not something we should support. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to double check - you're accusing me of sealioning (with a total of 3 comments) - and saying my motivation for doing this is because you think I'm pro-Trump and want to post "Wikipedia describes and confirms Biden's Crisis" on twitter? Genuine question: huh??? BugGhost🦗👻 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: used by reliable sources. Reasonable search term. C F A 💬
• Keep — I concur with Bugghost. "Biden crisis" is a headline term that became a general term in reference to the events leading up to Biden's withdrawal, and it was used by NPR. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

using the same logic as "pokémon incident", this requires defining "crisis" in a way that somehow narrows it down to this specific event and not any of the other crises and controversies he was involved in. i'll support dabifying if possible, or deleting if not cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the two is that there is a clear primary topic for "Biden Crisis" but there isn't for "Pokemon incident". Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i believe that's recentism. the next time he gets tangled up in something, it could very well become the next "biden crisis", just as there were "biden crises" before this one, and this discussion could happen again, and again, and again, until he dies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism is about article content. If something else becomes the primary target in the future then we can retarget or disambiguate at that point. We best serve the readers who are looking this up now by taking them to what the primary target is now, not making things harder because we guess that something might happen in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No clear target. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because a phrase is theoretically ambiguous does not negate the evidence of the current target being the clear primary topic. Unless you'd like to present such evidence of course. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are sources calling the events proceeding Biden's withdrawal a crisis, though many of those use the indefinite article "a crisis" ([5], [6]) or use another word to specify such as "campaign crisis" ([7], [8]), "post-debate crisis" ([9]), or "health crisis" ([10]). "Biden crisis" alone is a descriptive term with plenty of other possible targets, such as part of Biden's inauguration speech ([11]) and a particularly common framing of immigration and border patrol policies ([12], [13]). And that's just to name a few; see for instance [14]. This redirect came from a page move, and the title was unsuitable for the page. Note also the redirect's history seems insignificant in spite of the tag, as it contains only Special:Diff/1235882886, which was immediately reverted and does not appear to be reflected in another page's history as copied from here (though I may be missing it). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some sources referring to the event at "a crisis" or some other phrase does not diminish the fact multiple reliable sources referred to it as "Biden crisis". It also makes no difference whether the words "Biden" and "crisis" have appeared completely separately in other news stories. This argument, despite the links, does not display any other event or news story that has ever been described using the phrase "Biden crisis". This RFD is an extremely clear example of a correct redirect based on reliable sources, and I am genuinely surprised to see that there are good, long-standing editors that cannot see this BugGhost🦗👻 22:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, there is lots of evidence of this event being the primary topic for the search term "Biden crisis" and nearly all the attempted refutation is actually completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what people are looking for when they search the exact term "Biden crisis" - what people are looking for when they use other search terms, or what other people call this event make no difference at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All three references to "Biden crisis" are from the same group of writers at Axios/Politico. Enix150 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does "same group of writers" even mean? There were four sources posted, each with different author and from a different reliable source (not just Axios/Politico). Even if it were just one "group of writers" that would not affect the fact that it was called "Biden crisis" by some, and no other event has been called that. BugGhost🦗👻 10:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bugghost. It is defined and adequately sourced at the target, which is good enough for me. On the other hand, suggestions of ambiguity has not been substantiated with usage of the specific term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (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) Un assiolo (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Degi dialectDegi dialect → Okinoerabu dialect cluster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in any capacity at the target. Unclear how/why this redirect would make sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my recent mass redirects of Ryukyuan languages come from the supplementary metadata of UniCog (unicog_meta_v1.xlsx) and Nakamoto (1981:459-463) (図説琉球語辞典). Degi is a subarea of Okinoerabu (though information is very obscure; but see here for a postal code number list of Okinoerabu which includes Degi). Chuterix (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hey man im josh: you relisted your own nom 🙃. Keep, now mentioned. Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hey man im josh: you relisted your own nom?? Chuterix had added mention to the target the day after the nomination, none of the relists were necessary, unless there was new concern with the changes. Keep. Jay 💬 14:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So sorry @Jay and @Queen of Hearts, I honestly hadn't realized I made the nomination! Shame on me, definitely not something I should have done. I don't always pay attention to the names of nominators and I'm definitely not proud that I made this mistake. I'm happy to withdraw this nom as well based on the change at the target (not that it's not already decided based on the keeps and rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2024 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideological neutrality of the state → Ideology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The phrase "neutrality of the state" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what in the target article the redirect is meant to define. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe retarget to Neutral country, which does sort-of discuss ideological reasons why countries might be neutral? Not sure if I think this is a good target or not, but it deserves consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redirect. A quick web search indicates that the term "ideological neutrality of the state" is a Christian conservative euphemism for opposition towards LGBTQ+ education in public schools. Neither of the two proposed articles are a good target. Yue🌙 05:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Yue. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2024 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Le CartelLe Cartel → Mother Russia Bleeds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Le Cartel StudioLe Cartel Studio → Mother Russia Bleeds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects should be deleted. The developer's name and a typo are being redirected to its first notable game; the article itself mentions the developer's history but the redirect is barely used outside of articles for its games as well as game list articles. I do not believe it will be used enough to deserve a redirect of its own, like most other independent developers with notable games with their own articles. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article itself mentions the developer's history is ample reason to keep the redirect. You could at most argue WP:XY because the studio's other game, Heave Ho, also has an article. A typo is not in sight. IceWelder [✉] 10:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2024 (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 soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven Sages (Zelda series) → List of The Legend of Zelda characters#Sages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. This concept is present in multiple titles within the Zelda series, so it is unclear if this redirect should target any specific article or not. Steel1943 (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2024 (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. Jay 💬 11:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl. → Newhart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Fully written two-sentence long catchphrase of secondary characters no longer mentioned in the article. There are hundreds of ways of reaching the topic of Newhart between Google and Wikipedia searches, but this amount of specificity makes this unlikely and unhelpful, with nothing in the article or its references. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Now cut that out! → Jack Benny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A catchphrase not mentioned at the target article and provides no context to incoming readers, with the only allusion to this phrase being from one reference. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: What's the problem and what's your suggestion? I don't see a problem here, and "who said this line" is a helpful service. This was a very famous line for Jack Benny. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is exactly as I described. This is a redirect from a phrase which is not mentioned at the target article. People who search for this phrase will not receive any content related to their search of "cutting that out", as "cut"-ting is never talked about there. "Who said this line" is a service provided entirely by Google and is the reason that WikiQuote exists, allowing us to avoid baking thousands of WP redirects into concrete, based on anything any person has ever said. Indeed, famous people might have famous quotes. But even among the greatest of these, without a reference to substantiate its famousness at the target biography, there's no reason to keep it as a misleading redirect (misleading in the sense that it indicates to readers we have content when we do not). My suggestion is to delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because Google might usually win a "who said this line" contest doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't try to help people find the subject they're looking for. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable. There is no content on Wikipedia about this phrase besides a sourceless redirect, and no sources present in the article to back up the assertion of this quote's famousness. There is no evidence that people searching for the phrase "now cut that out" are seeking the article for Jack Benny; it is more plausible that people who search for the phrase "now cut that out" are looking for written material about the phrase "now cut that out". This information is not present at the Jack Benny article, so this redirect disappoints & misleads searchers who expect to find material specific to their Wikipedia search at the target page.

  If these searchers wanted to read about Jack Benny, they wouldn't search "now cut that out", but instead search for the name "Jack Benny". Searching for the name of an individual with a Wikipedia page will give users the page they're searching for with ~99% accuracy. Searching for a quote yet ending up at a page about a person, as opposed to an page dedicated to the quote they are searching for, will work for approximately ~0% of quotes in existence, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unreferenced quote-person-associations. Wikiquote is more suitable for connecting people with the quotes they said, although searching for "now cut that out" on Google still recommends the Wikipedia page for Jack Benny anyway. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not even unique enough to jack anymore. results mostly gave me paper cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you weren't using an exact phrase search. Google Advanced Search gives me only Jack Benny (with a small smattering of other uses that seem mostly derivative and don't start until the second page of search results, like Meet the Parents, The Jetsons and Scooby Doo). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was, and that didn't really help either cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2024 (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 and refine to Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Reception. The phrase has been added to the article so it looks like consensus is going towards a keep. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 17:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can do this all dayI can do this all day → Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A catchphrase not mentioned at the target article, which gives insufficient context and does not provide readers with an explanation. People interested in Captain America would look up the character, not the quote from the Avengers (I think). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom (and BarrelProof's counter-questions in parallel noms notwithstanding), I don't (personally) associate this line with the target character, but I feel confident I've heard it two or three other places, none of which occur to me at the moment. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per "results did actually mostly give me captain america, but deeming him the primary topic for a search of this nature would be like redirecting america to him". deadpool also gets that one a lot, if my short memory span isn't doing me dirty cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised, but Google Advanced Search for the exact phrase is very dominated by Steve Rogers / Captain America. (There's also a country song, but I don't find the artist on Wikipedia and his Youtube channel has only about 1300 subscribers.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Retarget to Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Reception where critical reception on this catchphrase used by the character has since been added. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Trailblazer101 points out, the central claim of the OP—that the target article doesn't mention the catchphrase—is no longer true. I was one of two users who added content about the catchphrase and its significance as part of the reception of the character. It was interesting to notice this RFD involving the catchphrase. From what I've found, coverage of this catchphrase substantially gravitates around the character covered in the target article. Even on GoogleScholar, the first hit for "I can do this all day" is about the topic of the target article. To address a delete argument, this would not be like redirecting "America" to the target article because both keyword searching and general assessment of sources demonstrates clearly that coverage of the term "America" does not gravitate around MCU character Steve Rogers. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hydrangeans. This phrase is widely associated with this character, at least to a large number of readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the quote is joe-neric as heck and irrelevant in any other direct context notwithstanding the direct, meaningful connection to Steve Rogers. BarntToust (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology and add a hatnote. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SCIENTOLOGYWikipedia:SCIENTOLOGY → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is also a WikiProject, although currently semi-active, about Scientology as well as the ArbCom case on it. I think the WikiProject would be a better primary topic, so the redirect follows the pattern of other WikiProject shortcuts. Xeroctic (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WP:WikiProject Scientology - Since the most significant parts of WP:ARBSCI have been rescinded (and because WP:ARBSCI exists as a redirect) there's little reason for WP:SCIENTOLOGY to point to RfArb/Scientology anymore, and the WikiProject seems like it is and always should have been the more reasonable target. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with retargetting to WP:WikiProject Scientology as the creator of the redirect. Perhaps a hatnote would be appropriate? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget but add hatnote to the arbcase. We should always be very conservative when retargetting shortcuts as the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is high - interpretations of things said in old discussions can be changed, and people familiar with the link won't look to see if the target is changed leading to people potentially using the same words to refer to different targets. However in this case, there are no relevant links (although edit summaries and unlinked uses can't be discounted) and very few uses (11 this year before today) meaning the risk of issues in this specific case is outweighed by the greater utility of the proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retraget or DAB given as noted the AC case is less relevant now though as noted to avoid breaking links a DAB might be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently, all links to the redirect involved this RFD, so no links are likely to be broken right now. Xeroctic (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (That is, unless it has been used in edit or log summaries.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK I hadn't noticed it was only created last November (I assumed it was created years back when the case was ongoing) and all links are indeed from this RFD so retargeting seems sensible rather than disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2024 (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 CN#Mathematics. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 17:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cn (mathematics)Cn (mathematics) → Root system#Cn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous, see CN#Mathematics. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to CN#Mathematics. Could have been done WP:BOLDly as the solution is obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2024 (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 DN#Mathematics. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dn (mathematics)Dn (mathematics) → Root system#Dn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous, see DN#Mathematics. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to DN#Mathematics. Could have been done WP:BOLDly as the solution is obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2024 (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 procedural close. Closing this as involved because an article has been created and this is not the proper venue anymore. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser → Wikipedia:CheckUser  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

CNR. Should we retarget to Wiki#Security? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC) It seems that somebody has converted the redirect into an article. I might withdraw my nomination. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Keep Actually, I am convinced by the below arguments. CheckUser is Wikipedia specific(no room for confusion), and new users may come across the term checkuser in the examples provided below. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think the question should be whether this is a potential useful redirect and whether it's unambiguous. I think it is, on both accounts. It being a cross-namespace redirect does not mean it's not useful. Those types of redirects aren't covered under WP:CSD R2, meaning, in certain cases, they're allowed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• All Google results appear to be for Wikipedia and I'm not sure if there is much non Wikipedia usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there is also Checkuser which should also be deleted or retargeted if this is closed as delete or retarget. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING - no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to see how the sausage is made; just dumping them into project space unawares is frankly kind of cruel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh (weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main->Project, such as Administrators noticeboard (and variations), Autoconfirmed, Disambiguation page, Good article, and many more (can sift through Category:Redirects to project space to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main->project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Wikipedia, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Berchanhimez: redirects from the mainspace to project space are discouraged (see WP:CNR for the background) and frequently deleted. Exceptions do exist, most commonly (but not exclusively) where it is desirable that the target page is easy to find by very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet (administrators noticeboard and Wikipedia help are examples). The second most common is for internal aspects that people outside the project will have heard of (or assume exist) and want to look up but which don't have an encyclopaedic target (e.g. good articles). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it unreasonable to think that those two are things a new user would be likely to search for, and not CheckUser, when CheckUser is used as a rationale for a block or referenced on those noticeboards sometimes. I am not saying they shouldn't be discouraged, but this is one that actually makes sense, in my view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's nothing inherently wrong with CNRs. Our goal is to help the reader get to where they want to go. Anyone typing "CheckUser" into the search bar evidently wants to get to the project page. Deleting it is just removing a helpful, unambiguous redirect for no reason. C F A 💬 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect to non-reader content. A reader would not be affected by a checkuser outcome, unless they edit. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful CNR shortcut created by a well-established editor many years ago (2017) based on another CNR shortcut (CheckuserCheckuser). That one was created by another well-established editor many years before that (2006). 1) Both are firmly "grandfathered-in" CNRs, and 2) per WP:R#KEEP, R3, R4 and R5. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It takes readers to a different section of the encyclopedia, and it doesn't sit right with me to bring readers to non-reader pages. SWinxy (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please help me to understand your discomfort with this mere shortcut. It is only used on talk pages by editors who want to lead other editors to the Wikipedia:CheckUser reference page (policy). It has no other usage than that. If a reader who is not an editor becomes involved in a talk page discussion, then it might actually lead that reader to beome an editor. The point is, it's just a shortcut, and it doesn't matter what namespace it's in. It's just a grandfathered-in shortcut, nothing more, nothing less. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:09, 20 August 2024 (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) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articleify 211 Google Scholar results for "checkuser" AND "wikipedia". A hatnote could satisfy both the !deletes and the !keeps. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good thing to convert to an article. Thanks for your suggestion! Hope this will help readers to know about the powerful security feature of the Wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. While an article would be good if it's notable, keeping the redirect until one is written is the best here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2024 (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. Consensus has not been reached, no activity in the last two weeks. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tax cuts for the richTax cuts for the rich → Trickle-down economics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should probably be deleted as non-neutral and poorly matched. While "tax cuts for the rich" are sometimes promoted as a method of trickle-down economics, they really aren't the same concept. Redirecting to tax cut does not make a lot of sense either. Jruderman (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's neutral (and even if it wasn't, redirects don't have to be neutral) and summarises the article's lead well: Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and Major examples of what critics have called "trickle-down economics" in the U.S. include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Major UK examples include Liz Truss's mini-budget tax cuts of 2022. The article describes the topic as primarily tax cuts for rich people - it's a good redirect. BugGhost🦗👻 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trickle-down economics is not the exact same thing as tax cuts for the wealthy. Should be deleted as forcing readers to follow a redirect to an irrelevant place, WP:SURPRISE applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly section link #Usage? This article does say "tax cuts to/for the rich" multiple times. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This could point to a number of places (chiefly, tax cut comes to mind), but none of them are a primary topic for this search term, and this doesn't lend itself way to being DABified. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Since this is mentioned at the target and "Trickle-down economics" is a very common descriptor of policies like this. Neutral on whether the redirect should be to the article in general or to the "Usage" section of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think this is a good redirect, basically per zxcvbnm. And since the phrase is used in Trickle-down economics, someone searching for this phrase specifically will be able to find that article if that's where they wanted to go. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2024 (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. ✗plicit 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevhen KholoniukYevhen Kholoniuk → 2011–12 figure skating season#Ice dance 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Subject does not appear in target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A 💬 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject appears at target as "Evgeni Kholoniuk" who is evidently the same person. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2024 (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. After weighing the options and arguments it appears to me that keeping is the correct choice. Although there is Gothus teemo I believe that WP:2DABS is the better direction to go. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Teemo → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned; delete unless a suitable target can be found. Queen of Hearts ^talk 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Before Arcane, one of the main "mascots" of League. Useful if someone wants to know where the naming of Gothus Teemo comes from for an example in wider culture of just last week. (Note that Teemo probably could be mentioned, but as a Featured Article, the League article is maintained pretty strictly, so it might be arguably under-inclusive in the name of keeping the highest level of sourcing.) SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Turn into disambiguation page now that G. teemo has an article. SnowFire (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with this. Per WP:2DABS a redirect/hat note would be preferable. Bensci54 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Could probably merit a small sentence-long mention based on this article regarding League's impact on popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given its use on Gothus teemo. Wouldn't be against it being mentioned on the main article, given that the crab is the first species to be named after a League of Legends character, although that's probably to be discussed on the talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support disambig per SnowFire. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: Why vote twice in favour in the same RFD request?! Intrisit (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it wasn't clear, it was to indicate I supported the two options (keeping the redirect, or converting it to a disambiguation page). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless anyone adds a mention themselves, as inherently confusing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gothus teemo where it's explained. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SnowFire. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RaymooRaymoo → List of Touhou Project characters#Reimu Hakurei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

raymoo hackery is a name generally only seen in shitposts, and i'd honestly be surprised if anyone not nose deep on every touhou rabbit hole knew about it. fittingly, not mentioned in the target, implausible as an actual search (unless you're me), and google gave me nothing reliable cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep and tag as meme. It's plausible that someone finds one of said shitposts, doesn't know how the original name is spelled, and searches "raymoo" to find info on Reimu. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. I personally believe that it is a genuine misspelling or respelling, but you would probably be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that mentions it being a meme or shitpost. Honestly, I don't even remember making this redirect in 2012, but I doubt that "Raymoo Hackery" ever crossed my mind since we would be discussing a "Raymoo Hackery" redirect as well. Regardless, the outcome doesn't really matter to me, so do what you may. — Nameless^(?) 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in your defense, it's funny cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I doubt Wikipedia would be the first place a person searching for info on Reimu would turn to. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 05:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Momentum is swinging towards deletion, but additional opinions are welcome to help clarify if there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a misspelling. It doesn't seem to refer to anything else on Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:00, 14 August 2024 (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) 02:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too far derivative. People searching for Reimu know her name isn't spelled this way. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair assumption. What if you only heard the name on a podcast and now you want to know more information? This looks like a plausible attempt at spelling it, especially for those unfamiliar with how Japanese is usually Romanized. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. Plausible misspelling/mishearing with no other apparent meaning. If the term becomes ambiguous with anything else, I'd support deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:32, 29 August 2024 (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).