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) 18:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Èr líng líng bā nián běi jīng xià jì ào yùn → 2008 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Chinese page redirecting to English Page Valorrr (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Google translate thinks this is Vietnamese for "the old man is very angry". If true, then delete as irrelevant. If this is Chinese for something related to the 2008 Olympics, then it should be kept as clearly having an WP:AFFINITY with the games held in China. Rusalkii (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Or Chinese (traditional) for "I have never heard of such a thing." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese: Èr (2) líng (0) líng (0) bā (8) nián (year) běi-jīng (Beijing) xià-jì (summer) ào yùn -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it is the Pinyin romanisation for 2008年北京夏季奧運 which translates to 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. I can't imagine anyone actually searching for the Pinyin though (especially as it's currently written), so it's a pretty unlikely redirect. I'd err towards deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SunloungerFrog's comment explains the link between this phrase and the target, but I disagree that deletion would be appropriate. This type of redirect is clearly permissible under WP:RLANG and appears to get consistent views. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consistently low, I'd say, based on Pageviews, which has just over 100 human (that is non-spider, non-automated) views since records began in July 2015. That is, less than one per month. I agree with Wildfireupdateman that practically no-one is going to be typing out the Pinyin for 2008. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this one, for the sole reason that I believe most Chinese would input "2008年。。。" or "2008 nián" instead of writing out 2008 in Pinyin. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Very unlikely any Chinese speaker would type "er ling ling ba" to find this article, or any pinyin for that matter. Yue🌙 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It might be a more plausible redirect if it were "2008 nián běi jīng xià jì ào yùn" (or following the pinyin rules for proper nouns: "2008 Nián Běijīng Xiàjì Àoyùn"). "Èr líng líng bā" is just not quite plausible. Sun8908 _Talk 10:41, 30 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 23:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Exoplanet, page 2 → Planetary system#Planet-hosting stars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It is not clear what "page 2" is referring to, and the section no longer exists. This redirect has a tortuous history: it was the original title of Exoplanet host stars, a page that split from Exoplanet in October 2014 and was later converted into a redirect (the current target is a different article, Planet-hosting star). Anyway, this redirect was the result of a misguided page split and should have been deleted at the time. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if there was a section that matched the name of this redirect, the section would probably need to be renamed since this redirect as a search term is highly improbable. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 25 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Barry SoetoroBarry Soetoro → Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Refers to Barack Obama. It was a name that Obama took when he lived in Indonesia as a child, the surname reflective of his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. Current target has two mentions of the name: the first to explain that Obama was known as this as a child in Indonesia, the second instance concerns an April Fools' hoax email chain from 2009 that purported he used the name to enroll at a college as a foreign student. Despite at the target the name being sparsely involved in a conspiracy, the name isn't a conspiracy itself and concerns Obama's early life. Retarget? BarntToust 22:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment whether it remains or retargets, it should be kept and not deleted, since it is actual use -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IIRC, Barry Soetoro was (is?) something birther-people liked to call Obama, using it quite a lot back in the day. It seems like a possibly still useful[1] redirect to me. Some earlier discussion at Talk:Barry Soetoro and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_18#Barry_Soetoro. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the use of this name is discussed at the current target; at Barack Obama the name is mentioned in an image caption explaining that "Obama was enrolled as 'Barry Soetoro'". It seems likely that anyone searching this name is interested in Obama's purported Indonesian citizenship, and therefore the current target is most useful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Caeciliusinhorto-public. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Caeciliusinhorto-public. But I suggest possibly adding a hatnote to Early life and career of Barack Obama for those looking for actual biographical information. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Early life and career of Barack Obama don't have actual biographical information? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I misread you. There is one at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Early_life_of_Barack_Obama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarification, the primary usage of the term appears to be the conspiracy theory as Caeciliusinhorto-public argues. However, people may also be looking for actual information about President Obama's life in Indonesia, which is discussed at Early life and career of Barack Obama. That is why I suggested a hatnote. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A name Obama went by that is discussed in sources and isn't a deadname. Definitely merits a redirect.

-insert valid name here- (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per those above. BD2412 T 00:44, 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 retarget to Cunt. There is rough consensus in favour of restoring the redirect and protecting it. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CunnyCunny → Lolicon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly removing this, lots of trolls. Valorrr (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore target to Cunt, where it is explained, it has been in use since the 17th-century -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per 65.92.246.77, trolling might be a reason for protection, but not for deletion, and the previous target was appropriate. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete since the word does not seem to inherently be an attack of sorts. Issues with "trolls" are concerns that should be actually brought up at WP:RFPP, instead of here, to get the page protected. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore target per IP. Protection might be needed to address trolling issues but it's beyond the scope of RfD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunny in the modern era is _{unfortunately, but that's not a discussion for a Wikipedia RFD} more recognizable as "Lolicon" than a slang for "Cunt" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move Cunny (disambiguation) into its place - seems more appropriate RachelTensions (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• move the dab here, protect both (not sure whether it should be semi or full protection), and mail soap, shampoo, and patches of grass to the word's "target demographic". my worky place is gonna kill me for this... consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore target - many centuries of usage are not trumped by a new coinage. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore prior target per those above, provide long-term protection. BD2412 T 00:45, 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) RanDom 404 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Myspace cursors → Myspace  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Is this redirect needed? RanDom 404 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 24 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. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MAIN PAGE!MAIN PAGE! → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The exclamation mark at the end is what pushes this straight into implausible territory. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has existed harmlessly since 2012 and nothing has changed since this was kept at RfD in 2015 and 2019. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep - As noted per above, two RfD's have decided to keep, plus it is doing no harm. Pageviews show that at least a couple people use it.

✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 14:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Sock strike. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! per Thryddulf. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F179:7FA5:8125:B272 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete since it's unlikely and has nothing to do with works which traditionally use the "CAPS!" stylization. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE! I SEE NO RE- ow my neck pipes. i see no reason for someone to type this in all caps and then with an exclamation mark aside from a quick chuckle. contrast this with stuff like YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM!, which is pretty blatantly written in all caps and with at least one exclamation mark consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please can you explain how absolutely any of that is relevant to the redirect under discussion? You not seeing a reason for a redirect is not a reason to delete it, especially when there have been two prior consensuses that it should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  admittedly, i'm a little iffy on even counting the 2019 one, since it was just kinda there (and both people who even acknowledged it did so based on the 2015 discussion, hi 2019 thryduulf ヾ(•ω•`)o). still, there's no real proof that the main page is associated with caps and an exclamation mark more than it is with random case with an interrobang or small caps with parentheses. if this redirect exists to skirt the line barnttoust mentioned, there's especially little reason to keep it, since it's then just a glorified easter egg/joke. i won't argue that it's surprising like the previous delete votes, but i will argue that it's implausible that anyone would specifically type that for any serious reason consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. No clue why some redirects like this exist seemingly only to skirt the line between being "plausible" and "actually useful". BarntToust 23:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE!. What the hell, people? On what planet is this even remotely useful? Just delete the damn thing and move on. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's useful on this planet. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have received 60 hits last year. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of ways for editors (and readers) to find their ways to redirect pages without them actually being useful. A paltry number of page views for a redirect to the main page over the course of a year doesn't indicate anything. Use some damn common sense...no one is helped by this. Jesus. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a redirect that unambiguously takes people who use it (and people do use it) to the only target they could be looking for and is not in the way of anything else, and so is thus harmless. Deletion will not bring any benefits to the encyclopaedia. Additionally it has twice been deemed useful enough to keep. These facts plus common sense and the various policies and guidelines regarding redirects tell me that the only logical response to this nomination is to keep the redirect as is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! Little guy isn't doing any harm. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems implausible and WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP Duckmather (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. It's been doing just fine. Oreocooke (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, consarn and Steel. Steel who had voted keep in 2015 has shifted to a weak delete a decade later. This is good enough for me for the "nothing has changed" argument. Our tolerance for inexplicable redirect titles has changed! Jay 💬 09:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing of value here. This redirect will never be used as a search term or as a link. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence presented above shows that it actually is used. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a difference between keeping something actually useful and hoarding every single remotely plausibly helpful thing. Cremastra _talk 15:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, but the evidence is that this is actually useful so I'm not sure why you are recommending deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 5 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 23:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Narcissistic decompensation → Decompensation#Psychology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should be DELETED because there are few or no credible sources for the usage of this phrase. Even if it sounds psychological, it should not be used. Psychological decompensation can be directly linked instead. This seems like one of Sam Vaknin's fringe theories which especially back in thee day seem to have been heavily proliferated on Wikipedia. Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 19:54, 24 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this redirect should go somewhere else, maybe Help:Calendar or Wikipedia:Time (disambiguation). Justjourney (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? None of the targets seem obviously better than any of the others, so linking via hatnotes seems sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. There may be rationale to create Wikipedia:UTC (disambiguation) per the nominator's comment, but I'm not sure; the other titles doesn't seem plausible targets of "UTC". Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 24 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 23:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Czech First League → Czech First League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No relevant information at the target about the tournament, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the tournament. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 24 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 23:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Turkish Cup → Turkish Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No relevant information at the target about the tournament, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the tournament. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 24 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–25 Israeli Premier League → Israeli Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be a page possibly created in error, based on the year range in the title. If it's not, well, this is not a format that we follow when the season is just in one year. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 24 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Cypriot First Division → Cypriot First Division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No information at the target about the season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 24 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Polish Cup → Polish Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No information at the target about the season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 24 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Azerbaijan Premier League → Azerbaijan Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No information at the target about the season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the season. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 24 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 Thai League 1 → Thai League 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No information at the target about the season, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the season. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should be left as a red link until the time comes for an article.. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 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 23:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Best of Steam Greenlight → James Stephanie Sterling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of this in any of enwiki's articles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a notable part of Sterling's work even when she made that series. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 26 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.

This redirect was speedy deleted via G4.. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TelevsionTelevsion → Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Keep. This redirect was recently brought up in a discussion here. The discussion resulted in deletion, primarily because the redirect was deemed an "implausible typo". I have renominated it, because the typo "televsion" does not seem implausible to me at all. A Google search for "televsion" returns several pages of results, including some articles that even contain this typo in their headlines:

• 'It Is So Powerful To Tell These Stories On Televsion': Rosanny Zayas On Showtime's 'The L Word: Generation Q' by CBS News, which is a generally reliable source,
• Televsion came of age with coverage of Kennedy assassination by The Columbus Dispatch,
• Dina Pugliese says a heartfelt goodbye to Breakfast Televsion by Toronto Sun,
• Up-and-Coming Country Star Willow Avalon Makes Her Late Night Televsion Debut by American Songwriter,
• EARTH-PRIME Brings DC's Televsion Super Heroes to Comics for An Epic In-Universe Crossover! by DC.com,
• Ice hockey megastar Jagr makes "acting debut" in Czech Televsion serial by Radio Prague.

Even several Wikipedia redirects have this typo in their title (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Therefore, I believe the redirect should be retained.

I've also notified all the participants from the previous discussion to see if they want to participate in this discussion and share if their opinions have changed, stayed the same, or if they have new counterarguments. Xoontor (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Xoontor: See WP:G4, which validates this recreated redirect be deleted immediately. I strongly assume this nomination is in good faith, but recreating a redirect that was deleted per the result of a discussion can be seen as WP:POINTy. (Regarding the other misspelled redirects, if anything, the previous discussion for this redirect validates the others being nominated for deletion as well since there is now established precedence for deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943 Doesn't this exclude pages where the reason for deletion no longer applies (It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.)? To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed, as the discussion had already been closed, and I couldn't present my arguments. Renominating the redirect seemed like the best option. Regarding your second point, I think most of the redirects with this misspelling should be deleted, but their existence suggests that the redirect is not an "implausible typo". Xoontor (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't, that is what WP:DRV is for, though there was a clear consensus to delete in the last RFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus can change. Xoontor (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        ...Not after like a day, which puts this in WP:G4 territory since a non-"no consensus" result was established based on the comments provided in the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:G4. If you want to challenge an RFD discussion, the proper forum is WP:DRV, not creating it again then immediately starting an RFD and messaging the person who nominated it for deletion last time. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302 I refrained from posting there, because it states that DRV should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. Xoontor (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons it was deleted last time. I nearly speedily deleted it under G4 but refrained as the nominator does bring up an argument that wasn't consdiered in the last discussion. Personally it doesn't sway me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• List at DRV since it is supposed to review a closure -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Patar knight: Pinging the closer of the previous discussion as a courtesy since a recommendation for WP:DRV has been stated. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 24 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 retarget to wiktionary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• YWNBAW → Transphobia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• YWNBARW → Transphobia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not discussed at target; Wiktionary has wikt:YWNBAW & wikt:YWNBARW, though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not exposed to the right contexts but I've never heard these. I suspect that they are too rare and should not be redirects. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very common on social media platforms. I think the redirect is useful to keep around, but the article body probably should get some kind of updating to explain it. That said, I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be to give ammunition to folks looking for it. I struggle to think of a policy based justification to back up my opinion here either way. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep without mention. There is nothing in the target article that will help someone unfamiliar with these terms figure out the meaning so they would just be confusing. If a mention is added then they should be kept, but I don't have an opinion at the moment about whether a mention is due. I'm also on the fence about soft redirection, there isn't a risk of this conflicting with another target and it seems unlikely we want an article at these titles, and there is relevant content at Wiktionary. However Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and not everything dictionaric but not encyclopaedic should be a soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Crosswiki redirect to Wiktionary. Not discussed at target and unlikely they will be. Wiktionary is the perfect place to have articles on these terms. -insert valid name here- (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to wiktionary which has an explanation of this phrase. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 26 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. Jay 💬 05:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pansy, Kansas → Franklin County, Kansas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

delete OK, something seems to have happened when I posted this. Anyway, the rationale is pretty much as stated below: this place was going to be deleted because evidence showed it was just a post office at a rail station, but because someone suggested a redirect, that prevailed. But the target doesn't mention it, because it's not a real town and apparently never wasm so there's really no reason to redirect. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe uh, i think you might wanna have a look at this again, i think rationale machine broke consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The backup rationale machine spits out "Not mentioned in target. I can find exactly one mention of such a location anywhere online [2], which doesn't seem to be enough to merit adding it to the target." Rusalkii (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this redirect exists because Liz closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pansy, Kansas as "redirect" in January 2024. Pinging contributors in that discussion (excluding Mangoe, the nominator here and there): @WeirdNAnnoyed, Firsfron of Ronchester, and James.folsom:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not mentioned at target, and per the original AfD, what is there to say about this place? Nothing. Incredibly unlikely search term and if by chance someone did search, they'd more likely be looking for the other Pansy mentioned by James.folsom. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 24 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025–26 College Football Playoff → College Football Playoff  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship → College Football Playoff National Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Please note that a similar discussion was closed as delete. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Misleading at this point, as the target does not provide enough relevant context for those who may be looking to find information about the event. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Was created WP:TOOSOON. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This redirect is not misleading, as it directs users to the College Football Playoff National Championship page, where general information about the event can be found. The 2026 game is already scheduled for January 19, 2026, at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, so WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Previously, 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship was a redirect until the game happened, at which point it became a full article. The same will likely happen with the 2026 game, so deleting this redirect now would be inconsistent with past handling of similar events. Many other major future sporting events have redirects well in advance, and keeping this one helps users find relevant information more easily. Abhiramakella (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many other redirects of this type (also made by you) were deleted due to being WP:TOOSOON. Also, a reader looking for information about the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship will see only that it will be hosted at a stadium also used by an NFL team and that it will be hosted at Hard Rock Stadium, which they would have to scroll down to Venues to even find. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the concern regarding WP:TOOSOON, but I believe the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship redirect should be treated differently for a few reasons:

  1. The Event Is Officially Scheduled – The 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship has a confirmed date (January 19, 2026) and a set venue (Hard Rock Stadium). This aligns with other redirects that have been allowed for major sporting events once their details are finalized.
  2. Precedent for Similar Redirects – In previous years, redirects for upcoming College Football Playoff National Championships have existed without issue. For example, the 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship now has an article because that game has already passed. The same will apply to 2026 as coverage increases.
  3. Redirects Improve Navigation – While it’s mentioned that readers can find information under the general "Venues" section, a redirect would provide faster access to relevant content. Without it, users searching for "2026 College Football Playoff National Championship" might struggle to locate the correct information.
  4. WP:TOOSOON Needs Clarification for Sporting Events – Right now, WP:TOOSOON does not define a specific timeframe for when a future sporting event is "too soon." It might be worth discussing whether events within 12 months (or those with confirmed venues) should be exempt from automatic deletion.

  That said, I agree that the 2027 College Football Playoff National Championship redirect should be deleted, as it is much further away and lacks significant coverage at this time. However, I believe the 2026 redirect meets the criteria for retention.

  Would love to hear thoughts on this! Abhiramakella (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I agree that WP:TOOSOON should be clarified for next year's (or this upcoming year's) scheduled sports events... I would prefer such redirects kept as long as the target mentions some bare minimum information about the upcoming event. I think we may need a formal RfC for it though, since a lot of people are adamant that no redirect is allowed to survive before the event takes place per this guideline. Do you think we should we village pump it first, or do just jump in towards an RfC now? I'd want something like "If an upcoming event (or whatever thing) is sufficiently noteworthy to have been mentioned in an article, a redirect is appropriate/allowable." added to the page. Fieari (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Noting this reply was made by the person who created the redirect)

  When we create redirects for events to articles there should be relevant information for the people who are searching for said event. There is, in this instance, not. It ends up misleading folks as a result and would be better left as a red link for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with an article (or redirect) creator defending their work, especially when legitimate arguments can be made. In this case, there are multiple mentions of the 2025-26 Championship Game on the main championship game (such as the game having been awarded to Miami being noted in the hosts/cities and the resuts sections). Not quite so much on the general CFP article, but even that covers general broadcasting and format descriptions of modern playoffs (which include 25-26) Frank Anchor 12:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone more Wiki savvy then me please bundle in 2025–26 College Football Playoff? Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 19:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CycloneYoris: In the future, please consider not adding in additional redirect nominations 8 days after the initial nomination took place and multiple people have voted. There wasn't really a good reason to do so in this case and I'm personally bothered when I vote for something and then what I'm voting on changes after the fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry! Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CycloneYoris: Also while bundling, new entries should go below existing ones per WP:RFDHOWTO STEP II. I understand that newer nominations go above existing ones, but within a nomination, placing a newer entry above the others gives the false impression that the newer one was added first, and most/all votes were for the upper one. Jay 💬 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with 2025–26 College Football Playoff as requested by the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirects or spin out to full articles. This is not misleading as each links a specific edition to an event to a page describing the event in its entirety. That said, as these are less than a year away, there is likely content pertaining to the specific events (especially the championship game itself) such as location and broadcasting information, such that WP:TOOSOON does not apply. Frank Anchor 12:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment reads like rationale to delete per WP:RETURNTORED/WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2025–26 College Football Playoff - no/miniscule information at target. Jay 💬 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No information at target = WP:REDLINK/WP:RETURNTORED. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is it or isn't it too soon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too soon. Abhiramakella (talk) 23:31, 24 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry OppenheimHarry Oppenheim → List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This has been a bug-bear of mine for a while: this was the product of an AFD discussion which closed as redirect. The problem was that Harry Oppenheim was not the name of the subject, since the non-notable Austrian footballer it was about was actually called Heinrich Oppenheim. "Harry Oppenheim" therefore isn't mentioned on the target page. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Oppenheimer I thought it would just be redirecting it for the sake of it, but I see "Harry Oppenheim -er" in a lot of OCR scans etc. from the time. I think it's actually a surprisingly common misspelling after all; and might be useful for someone coming from there JeffUK 21:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support this as a more useful redirect. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources in the former article show that Harry Oppenheim and Heinrich Oppenheim likely refer to the same person. See also de:Heinrich Oppenheim (Fußballspieler) and it:Harry Oppenheim. - Eureka Lott 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a {{citation needed}} at the target. I did see the word "Oppenheim" without the first name in one newspaper cutout from the sources at the de wiki, but as they are images, I could not get them translated. Someone who reads German may want to check these out. Jay 💬 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current target is a dubious misspelling of a bare list entry without enough substance to warrant a redirect. I'm not convinced this is a plausible misspelling for Oppenheimer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 20 February 2025 (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, Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-notable but it does appear he is referred to as Harry in some sources as Eureka Lott notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Redirection without prejudice to the player's original name, which should also be redirected to the article. Svartner (talk) 03:26, 8 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies. also refining per suggestions (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Late DevonianLate Devonian → Devonian#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To unredirect article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Devonian#Late_Devonian (same page, I properly formatted the headings for anchor purposes) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/refine per Bunnypranav. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Late PennsylvanianLate Pennsylvanian → Pennsylvanian (geology)#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect Article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle PennsylvanianMiddle Pennsylvanian → Pennsylvanian (geology)#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect Article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Early PennsylvanianEarly Pennsylvanian → Pennsylvanian (geology)#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect Article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies. not counting my question as involvement, though i don't think it would've gotten in the way of a speedy keep if it did (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Late MississippianLate Mississippian → Mississippian (geology)#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To unredirect article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article states that the Mississippian can be divided into three temporal subdivisions, late, middle and early are thus reasonable search terms. I'm not advocating for regargetting to the more specific articles as the article also states that there are conflicting divisions so there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correspondence with late/middle/early. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is that rationale supposed to imply anyway? that returning to red would be a good idea? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle MississippianMiddle Mississippian → Viséan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect Article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article states that the Mississippian can be divided into three temporal subdivisions, late, middle and early are thus reasonable search terms. I'm not advocating for regargetting to the more specific articles as the article also states that there are conflicting divisions so there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correspondence with late/middle/early. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Early MississippianEarly Mississippian → Mississippian (geology)#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article states that the Mississippian can be divided into three temporal subdivisions, late, middle and early are thus reasonable search terms. I'm not advocating for regargetting to the more specific articles as the article also states that there are conflicting divisions so there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correspondence with late/middle/early. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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 speedy keep. no understandable rationale was given, so wp:sk#1 applies (non-admin closure) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle OrdovicianMiddle Ordovician → Ordovician#Subdivisions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

To Unredirect Article Keekekekeke (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator provided no rationale, and I'm not a mind reader. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 24 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. There was no opposition to the nomination's suggestion that the former (Direct limit) target is more appropriate. Actually an editor has already retargeted Direct system to it, with a misleading edit summary of "closed as retarget". Jay 💬 10:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Direct system (mathematics)Direct system (mathematics) → Direct limit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Direct systemDirect system → Ind-completion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These should point at the same target; the former is probably more appropriate looking at the backlinks, though the more general notion with filtered categories could be hatnoted (it is currently only briefly mentioned at Direct limit#Related constructions and generalizations). 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:31, 24 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. Jay 💬 10:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Albaniannn → Albanian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

On 19 December 2005 User:Xhamlliku~enwiki moved the article Albanian mafia to this title without explanation. 18 days later on 6 January 2006 the move was reverted by Adashiel. Then in June 2023 (17 years later) Dsuke1998AEOS retargetted it to the present target with the summary "Regardless of the merits of this redirect, it makes more sense to point it to Albanian". While I do agree that Albanian makes more sense as a target than Albanian mafia, I don't think it is a useful redirect, although the 11 page views last year is much more than I was expecting. The only hits I can find on google all relate to user names on various platforms (including user:Albaniannn and sq:Përdoruesi:Albaniannn whose only contributions were in 2016 and unrelated to this redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

• Delete per nom. Implausible typo redirect that was the product of a botched (or disruptive) page move from a generation ago. The more reasonable typo Albaniann does not exist. In retrospect, perhaps I should have gone straight to RfD, rather than have done the retarget. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:09, 24 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. Participants agreed that the redirect is a reasonable search term. There were concerns with copyright violations in the page history, but they have been deleted. Jay 💬 12:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Breast milk oversupplyBreast milk oversupply → Hyperlactation syndrome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Originally created as an article by User:Sys64wiki as an attempt to usurp the target article, with added information plagiarized from other sources smoothed out by LLM use. Redirected to removed vandalism, despite the page name in itself is an implausible synonym. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert and send to AfD as a contested BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also fine with keeping if others regard this as a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not restore (or keep as a redirect). Page was created as an unnecessary duplicate of Hyperlactation syndrome, apparently with the help of a LLM. No point in restoring if subject is already covered at the target, and nobody is contesting the BLAR either. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • nobody is contesting the BLAR this nomination is explicitly contesting the BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator isn't asking for the article to be restored, and they didn't even intend to revert the BLAR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator contests that the redirection was inappropriate and that both it and the pre-redirect contents should be deleted. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as anything other than contesting the BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hyperlactation syndrome - ok, cool, so it was a duplicate article. So what? It's still a plausible search term, after all. Someone-123-321's PC Account (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect already targets Hyperlactation syndrome. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realized this the second I wrote the comment, sorry :P User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ;) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect to Hyperlactation syndrome - it's not an unreasonable search term. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly I have uncovered what I believe to be another instance of WP:CLOP copyvio. I therefore suggest it's better to presumptively delete this in its entirety rather than a more complicated edit/revdel process, and then if someone wanted to re-create the redirect later, that would be fine. In any case, so as not to waste the sources that were collected by the original creator, I will extract them from historical versions of this page and add them to Hyperlactation syndrome on the talk page as useful future sources for that article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as a reasonable search term, with opposition to restoring as a dupe, though i'd support revdels of the plagiarism consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 13:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The plagiarism has already been revdelled. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  haha yes consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:57, 25 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. Jay 💬 10:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• More Information of Florida's Governor's → List of governors of Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The incorrect punctuation plus the odd "more information" qualifier make this highly unlikely to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a useful construction. BD2412 T 01:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The closest grammatical title I can make from this is More information about Florida's governors but that wouldn't make a useful title either (more information than what?). Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this quite preposterous construction of words and muddling mess of grammar. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and call it daft as there is no way someone would search up THAT.

Not only is it grammatically incorrect, but even a gramatically fixed title would also imply that Wikipedia has more information on Florida's governors than.... what? my neighbor Ted who lives down the street? my Umbreon plushie? User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nah, it's all there. Nothing more to see otherwise. (It's unclear what the word "more" is meant to refer to exclusive from what is already in the target article, creating a confusing circular reference to the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure why we are even discussing it. Deb (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's being discussed because it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 28 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. Jay 💬 11:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Governor of Calidornia → Governor of California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Spelling mistakes are useful redirects, but typing mistakes are not. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some typing mistakes do make useful redirects, but this is not one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Thryduulf. (TBH, the typo name sounds like a fictional place, so might be misleading). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the [d]-key is next to the [f]-key on a QWERTY keyboard, so a plausible typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible typo, considering two correctly-typed words are necessary before arriving at the typo. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep in mind that this is the only instance of "Calidornia" on ENWP to unambiguously mean California (meaning this is not a plausible mistake) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. while it is a plausible typi on its own, you'd have to have typed "governor of" correctly and then misspelled "california" to even get there consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:21, 25 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. Jay 💬 11:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• New York State Communications Director → Governor of New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect was originally created back in 2013 as a replacement for a piped link in {{Infobox New York cabinet}}, although at that time it targeted Government of New York (state). There are several other similar redirects in that template. As there is no mention of this role in the current or previous target articles, it seems reasonable to delete the redirect. There is little benefit to just sending the reader to a very general article on New York governance. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:18, 24 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. Although the name has been mentioned in reliable sources, it is not currently mentioned in any of the articles cited. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Techno Mechanicus Musk → Elon Musk#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:BLPNAME, WP:NONAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Absolutiva (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one actually use this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However it fails mentioning a minor's name per WP:NONAME and WP:NPF. Absolutiva (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not applicable. The uniqueness of names of Musk's children have been covered in media. Jay 💬 15:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's the name of Elon's son, and with 205 pageviews over the last 30 days, it's certainly something that people are looking for. Plant🌱man (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's been widely mentioned in the media, so above policies don't really apply. If I understand correctly, those are more so for children who the public don't care about as much. Plant🌱man (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been splashed across enough newspapers that privacy concerns don't really apply imo, though WP:NONAME is pretty empathic that minor children of public figures should remain unnamed where possible. That said, it isn't actually mentioned in the target. I'm not sure it should be mentioned in the main article given that he has 12 or possibly 13 children, but perhaps the name should be specified at Musk_family#Relationships_and_children_of_Elon_Musk and then retargeted? I'm not adding the name unilaterally because several of his other children are also unnamed and I'm not sure if that's for a reason. I don't think we should keep the redirect without a mention, since all the searcher can infer from that is that this probably a relative of Musk's of some sort. Rusalkii (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in the article, and rightly so in accordance with WP:NONAME which clearly tells us not to name minor children of celebrities even if good sources do publish the name. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NONAME is not applicable in this case, as it is the names of the children that have got coverage in media. "Not mentioned" could be a new or separate discussion. We can either have a new nomination, or have the current nomination rationale amended. Jay 💬 11:40, 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 11:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Referred Chamita Formation → Chamita Formation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is not an alternative name of the formation, and I think the title was made in error. In its page history, it was briefly a duplicate, and was soon redirected to the main article. Delete per D8. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:04, 24 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).