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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wolf Man (2018 film) → Wolf man (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no subject mentioned in the target article as referred in the redirect's title (no 2018 film), leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to refer to. Looks like (maybe accidental) misinformation. If you look at the (now-blocked) creator's talk page history, you'll see they had a history of creating bad film redirects like this. The closest thing I could find is a documentary called Wolfman's Got Nards (2018) for which we do not have an article. C F A 💬 22:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Given that this redirect was created in 2015 the most charitable interpretation is that this is the result of a faulty crystal ball. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 23 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolfman → Larry Talbot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wolf man → Werewolf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wolf-man → Werewolf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Pretty sure these redirects should all by synced. However, I'm not sure which target is preferred. (Also, for what it's worth, Wolfmen currently targets Werewolf. In addition, Wolf man (disambiguation) exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sync all to Werewolf. The concept that the movie is based on is the primary topic, as already decided at Wolf man (disambiguation). I suppose you could make the argument that there is no primary topic, and that Wolf man should be the disambiguation page instead, but that should not be a discussion for RfD. C F A 💬 22:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  re: but that should not be a discussion for RfD - I've suggested this below because I think it's the correct course of action for these pages, and I've seen other RfD's suggest/implement similar moves without this causing any issue BugGhost🦗👻 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then I change my vote to Move Wolf man (disambiguation) to Wolf man and redirect. C F A 💬 15:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig (ie. move Wolf man (disambiguation) to Wolf man, then redirect all to Wolf man). I don't think targetting to Werewolf is completely wrong but it doesn't feel 100% correct either - in my view "Werewolf" refers to the species while topics that use the phrase "Wolf man" often are referring to particular individual werewolves (note how many versions of "The Wolfman" there are compared to just "Werewolf"). I don't think it's likely that someone searching for "wolf man" is looking for the general concept of werewolves, they are most likely looking for one of the many articles we have that have "Wolf Man" in the title. BugGhost🦗👻 12:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disambig per bugghost, and conveniently forget to add 50% of the furry scene to it (40% being foxes and 10% being everything else, where's my variety~?) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:56, 24 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Demase → Werewolf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia either. Third party search results primarily return results for a law firm. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (speedy?): Looks like an old hoax. I can only find a Free Dictionary redirect which apparently cross-references terms from Wikipedia. So it is most likely a hoax that originated on Wikipedia and propagated elsewhere. C F A 💬 22:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not comfortable calling it a hoax (it could simply be an in-joke, simple vandalism, or a multitude of other things where there was no intent to deceive), but it certainly isn't a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 23 July 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 Security incidents involving Donald Trump. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Assassination threats against Donald Trump → 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Given the recent creation of the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, I'm not sure if the current target is the correct target anymore, specifically since an "attempt" could be a "threat" and the fact that "threats" in the nominated redirect's title is plural. My primary option here is "do not keep" with a preference towards "weak delete" if there is no strong stance between retargeting or disambiguating. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Security incidents involving Donald Trump which will list any threats against him. Pretty straightforward. Disambiguating will duplicate the existing list. C F A 💬 20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CFA. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CFA BugGhost🦗👻 13:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CFA. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:30, 24 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• AAoDT → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An obscure acronym that has no precedence on Wikipedia (see list of similar pages at Special:PrefixIndex/AAo) based on a naming convention established by Wikipedia that third party search engines think I'm trying to find "Aamodt" when searching this term; when I restrict the third party search results for only "AAoDT", the top results are for a company that does drug testing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: because nothing else uses the acronym. It can be deleted or disambiguated in the future if the need arises. C F A 💬 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Heck, apparently, not even the target subject uses this acronym, considering the connection between the acronym and the target subject cannot be found virtually anywhere, making this redirect a combination of possible WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, and/or WP:HOAX. See similar recent discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 for since-deleted redirects TDVC, TDOTJ, and LVER. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, it is made up, but it is particularly harmless because it is not used by anything else. And it is probably too long to reasonably refer to anything else. Pretty unambiguous in my opinion. C F A 💬 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AAODT LLC is a drug testing company. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a term that is in use anywhere in relation to the target. Like the nom, my only hits relate to a non-notable drug testing company and then random product codes, "A minor angel. Enochian", procedurally generated URIs, and OCR errors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I have used this myself as a talk page abbreviation, it is not used anywhere in media sources. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is not used anywhere and is confusing. IP75 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirecting acronyms that no one uses is not helpful BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has no external use, serves as a useless redirect for an acronym nobody uses for this event. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 08:23, 25 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadalpheretz → Lambda Pegasi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not appear on the IAU list of named stars. A number of GHits, but I suspect they're all derived from our article. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 24 July 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 turned to article. Jay 💬 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. K (film) → The Spy: Undercover Operation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The need for this redirect seems unnecessary when the film its redirecting to doesn't even have "Mr. K." as an alternate title, it was just a working title at some poit. I propose deleting it as their is a new film with the actual title "Mr. K." premiering at TIFF soon that would make more sense to have the page title "Mr. K (film)" (link to film https://tiff.net/events/mr-k) Apologies if this isn't exactly right, this is my first time doing this TDFan1000 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this upcoming Mr. K should have its own article, you can be bold and create it yourself (though probably not now since you already started the discussion). Personally, I don't see a ton of coverage for it, and I'm not sure there's enough to justify an article (though I've never created a film article and I don't know what's typically expected for an upcoming film), but if you disagree then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else there is to do with this redirect. I agree that it would make more sense as an article for the upcoming movie, but only if it's right that that movie have one in the first place. Otherwise, I suppose retargeting to Mr. K, a dab page where I just added mentions of both films, would be sensible. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the page an article related to the 2024 film. I think there's enough info out there to justify creating it and obviously once the film is out there'll be more to add. Also, the film being selected to premiere at a well known film festival justifies it's creation enough, no? There's other film pages created based on less, I guess, but it makes sense to me to get rid of the original redirect and make the article about the 2024 film. Let me know if that's ok! TDFan1000 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close because there is now an article at the target. C F A 💬 00:13, 24 July 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 Weblogs, Inc.#Autoblog. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Autoblog → Spam blog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target page uses "auto blog" (with the space) once in the lead, unsourced (source in the sentence verifies "splog" but does not use "auto". Seems like this redirect (without the space) should be going to the publication mentioned in the hatnote, and perhaps some changes should be made to the spam blog page (or at least another source found for use of the term). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to deleting the redirect. It's been in place for years. As for the target page, it's using a lot of the terminology incorrectly and needs a lot of work. However, the usual "reliable sources" aren't reliable with respect to SEO terminology because there are no definitive sources of information on that terminology. An "auto blog" is not necessarily a spam blog. Not all spam blogs are auto blogs. Virtually no one in the industry uses "splog" and it was never a very popular term. It was used primarily here on Wikipedia. The word is found mostly in non-SEO glossaries and a few Web hosting companies' sites. They're either copying the Wikipedia definition or the original Wired article that introduced the term. I think this is why people like me mostly just watch the SEO pages for vandalism. They are at best borderline acceptable for Wikipedia inclusion. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see any reliable sources using the term. It should also be removed from the lead of the target. C F A 💬 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @CFA and Michael Martinez: did either of you consider the retargeting option I mentioned in my nomination? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is a good idea. Must've missed it the first time. I change my vote to retarget to Weblogs, Inc.#Autoblog and remove the mention from Spam blog. I imagine this would be the primary topic for "Autoblog" even if it was occasionally used to refer to spam blogs. C F A 💬 03:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Jay 💬 17:03, 30 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter Selvaratnam → Mandibular notch  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There doesn’t seem to be any mention of Peter Selvaratnam at Mandibular notch, and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of Mandibular notch in the article that previously existed at Peter Selvaratnam before it was cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that the Wikipedia page "Peter Selvaratnam" redirects to "Mandibular notch." I created the initial content for "Peter Selvaratnam" on June 24, 2024, and this redirection appears to have been set up on November 17, 2023, by the user Abishe.

I believe this redirection might be incorrect, as the content on "Peter Selvaratnam" is not related to "Mandibular notch." I would appreciate any input on whether this redirection was made in error or if there are specific reasons for it.

Additionally, if you have any suggestions on how to address this or how to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, please let me know.

Thank you for your assistance! Camberwell3124 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe says they changed the article to a redirect because it "would fail WP:GNG". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone's clear, User:Abishe created and redirected the Peter Selvaratnam article and User:Camberwell3124 made the draft at Draft:Peter Selvaratnam. - Eureka Lott 19:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nonsensical redirect. Even if there is some correlation between the two pages, this would be a very WP:SURPRISING article to arrive at when searching for this person. C F A 💬 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, delete. Camberwell's draft does mention Temporomandibular joint though. Jay 💬 17:12, 30 July 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).