March 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2025.

Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

Recently created. Talk:Bésame Mucho (disambiguation) is a red link, so it cannot be pointed there and as per WP:DAB it cannot be created. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pin game

weird case. "pin game" (with a space or dash) seems to be a collective term for the kind of games you'd find on YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM! (with like 2.5 results related to pinball i guess), while "pingame" seems to refer to an unnotable band. though pingame journal is an article that exists, so maybe an argument could be made for it? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the article, By the 1930s, manufacturers were producing coin-operated versions of bagatelles, now known as "marble games" or "pin games". - redirect seems reasonable BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bugghost says. If some other potential target comes up, that we need to address versus claptrap like non-notable bands, then we can disambiguate by one means or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
time to yap lol
results from a slightly more in-depth search gave me the act of pinning games (whatever that could mean for both terms), "pin-pulling/pushing" games (like the ones in YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM!, and those sexually questionable mobile game ads which i'm surprised don't have a lot of coverage here beyond gardenscapes), bowling, push-pin (that's a thing!?), and ring-and-pin. as is, this is a little confusing because the thing that seems to be the primary topic doesn't have an article, and the most reliable sources i got for pinball or related games were the source used in the article... and the article
that gibberish aside, if that's the case and i haven't misread the article (which is admittedly pretty likely), it refers to bagatelles as "pin games", not pinball, so wouldn't it be better to retarget and mention the nomenclature there for now? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Bagatelle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go in the hopes of getting some Bagatelle-related comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPOT

An anonymous IP erroneously changed the acronym of the Pennsylvania Opera Theater (POT) to TPOT in this edit. This minor but incorrect change went unnoticed and the redirect was created in error. 4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete. We're not responsible for non-notable meanings of a term. Otherwise, we'd have to delete most {{r from initialism}}s. Paradoctor (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that follows - "we delete all initialisms where the overwhelming primary topic doesn't have an article, such that redirecting to our best article for it would surprise most readers" strikes me as a totally reasonable policy and I suspect doesn't actually get most of the current redirects. (Of the first five random initialism redirects I checked, four had the target as the clearly primary topic and one didn't seem to have a primary topic). Rusalkii (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topics are notable, by definition, and they have an article, by definition: the topic to which the term should lead. I was talking about non-notable meanings. BFDI is not notable. That's why BFDI exists, but redirects to a German federal agency most likely not searched for by users entering "BFDI" into the search box. Or do you feel like nominating that one for deletion, too? Paradoctor (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel like nominating that one for deletion because I'm pretty sure I just saw that discussion and I am not in the habit of re-litigating lost battles. My primary point was that in fact the case where the non-Wikipedia-notable meaning of the term is the primary topic (not as a term of art, but just as "what do most people seem to be looking for") are not anywhere near common enough that, if this was adopted as a principle at RfD, we'd need to delete most of them. Rusalkii (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Jason H. Moore (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). Ignoring the obvious target (which we don't have nor should we) this seems like the best target for now. 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Museum of Art

There are multiple art museums in Manhattan, and the MoMA is not the largest. It's unhelpful to have this redirect to just one of the many art museums in Manhattan, especially if it's not the largest or most famous one. We also have the Met and the Guggenheim in Manhattan. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are no museums in Manhattan with this exact name. With the existence of a large number of art museums in Manhattan, this redirect is unlikely to be helpful and woild instead be misleading. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl farts

Not a helpful search term, nor is there anything relevant to gender at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to queefing's target (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). When someone searches up "girl farts", they're almost certainly looking for the kind of farts that only women have - hence, queefing 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't beilieve I'm even having this discussion, but that's not exactly the expected result from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Persian

Tajik is not the same as Persian, and the title suggests that the target may be either about introduction of Cyrillic writing in Persian in general (As far as I know, no such thing happened.) or about transcription of Persian into Cyrillic (which is not the topic of the target). Janhrach (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:STATEMEDIA

WP:SHORTCUT to content that was promptly removed and has been unanimously rejected by everyone except its author at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources#State media, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not relevant?, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Confusing addition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an essay on the use of state media sources on Wikipedia? If yes, then WP:RETURNTORED, if not, then we might be better off retargeting to WP:SSFN. Nickps (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having an essay on state media might actually be helpful, given the confusion that lead to this redirects creation (not that I'm volunteering to write one). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I un-volunteer myself from both writing it and from defending it against people who believe that they know something that nobody else knows and which can't be WP:Directly supported in reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Which is not relevant, it is currently in talk page. Absolutiva (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Cyrillic

I understand that this is the primary topic, but the target article does not actually contain anything about the writing system. WP:RETURNTORED? Janhrach (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sbaio or Pofka probably know enough to be able to write a couple of sentences about that. Whether it should be in Lithuanian press ban or in Lithuanian language or a separate article is beyond me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sat (Romania)

Not mentioned in the target article, and target section does not exist, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. In addition, if the intent of this redirect was to provide a translation, the target apparently is not the right target anyways; it seems the word "sat" in Romanian actually means village, but doesn't seem to be a clear place to target in that article either. It seems that no matter where this redirect is targeting, there is a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any memory of a redirect I created 15 years ago, but MediaWiki does. The page "City" as it existed when the redirect was created shows there used to be a section on cities in Romania, of which sat is evidently a relevant term. Checking the backlinks and my own edit history, the redirect in question was evidentially added to fix the "SAT (disambiguation)" page. Probably the most productive thing to do next would be to see if the relevant content from city was moved elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted that before I made this nomination by using search phrases such as "Sat Romania" and couldn't find an adequate place to retarget this redirect. In addition, the word "sat" appears in the article Romania 0 times. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content on Romania, and other countries, was not moved elsewhere, it was removed with comment Remove absurd section. Listing out how cities are defined and what they are like in every country of the world is obviously beyond the scope of this article. Later on, there was a discussion on splitting out the "Distinction between cities and towns" section to a separate article, but the participants may not have been aware of this large content that was removed. The most enthusiastic participant in that discussion has since retired.
Probably move that removed content to a new article? Jay 💬 09:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuogsphere

I assume this is a reference to Yugoslavia? Term exists nowhere else on the internet. Not mentioned in target and should not be. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to the article of the Southeastern Europe boycotts. Earlier on, the article used the terms Yugosphere to reference the Balkan nations that participated in this event. Rager7 (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only "doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet" because it's misspelled. The correctly spelled version is a separate article in of itself, but due to the fact that the misspelled term doesn't exist anywhere else, it shouldn't be retargeted there. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I didn't realized that I misspelled it until you pointed to out to me. Rager7 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to delete this, because it's recent (so it hasn't "existed for a significant length of time", which would be a good reason to keep) and because it appears to be an unusual misspelling ("a frequent misspelling" would also be a good reason to keep). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald the Lone Assassin

No such work by this name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHEAP, it's a plausible search term, as most John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories allege multiple assassins (typically that Oswald was one of several gunmen), that he was present at the site but was not involved, or that he was not present at all. In other words, "Oswald the lone assassin" is logical shorthand for the official story of who killed JFK. Carguychris (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all plausible. The daily average pageviews for this redirect is exactly zero. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it is "logical shorthand" or not, it isn't an expression that anyone uses, and the likelihood of anyone ever typing "Oswald the Lone Assassin" in order to find about Lee Oswald is zero. (Incidentally, I am also puzzled as to how it can be described as "shorthand".) JBW (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JBW, also adding that the specific use of title case implies it being the title of a work rather than a "logical shorthand". Not more plausible than the myriad of other adjectives one could use to refer to Oswald. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak because it's existed for a significant length of time (WP:RFD#KEEP reason), and it gets used about ~36 times a year. Otherwise, this would be an easy delete for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I don't know where you got the statistic "36 times a year"; maybe taking the page view statistics for the year up to when you checked? If so, that's not a valid statistic, for two reasons. Firstly, the number of page views is not by any means the same thing as the number of times it is used as a redirect; there are many other kinds of page views, such as someone who has seen it in an editor's editing history & wonders what it is. Secondly, the figure is seriously inflated by the views by people checking because they have seen this discussion. The number of views so far in the few days since this discussion was started has been more than in the whole of the previous two years. The number of page views in the 365 days before the posting of this discussion was 18, & the number in the year before that was 10. The most one can say about the frequency of uses of the redirect, on the basis of that information, is that it is at most 14 per year, and there's nothing to say it isn't 0 per year. JBW (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to exclude February 2025 (when it was originally listed), then it's 28 times in the previous 12 months.
I believe that this tool captured all page views, including uses as a redirect, and not just &redirect=no views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Limited

Not mentioned in target. I'm having some trouble figuring out the connection between this and Zomato, a search is pulling up lots of clearly unrelated things. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a name change: https://www.republicworld.com/business/zomato-changes-name-to-eternal-limited-company-confirms-decision Aprzn (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, no objection to the redirect and/or a move if it's actually called that and the target reflects that. Rusalkii (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is part of a company renaming exercise (Zomato Limited → Eternal Limited) that has received board approval but has yet to receive shareholder approval [1]. If and when the name change takes effect, Eternal Limited will be the parent entity of Zomato, Blinkit and other businesses. This is similar to Facebook Inc changing its name to Meta Platforms. Yuvaank (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like we should close this. Maybe the nom could put a note on her calendar to check back in a year. ("Not mentioned" is not actually a reason to delete a redirect. That only applies if it is "novel or very obscure".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:---

Subst-then-delete or retarget to {{mdash}}. wikt:---#Punctuation_mark shows how a triple hyphen is an em dash, but this redirect is to a 3-em dash. Deviating from the customary Hyphen#Use_in_computing only causes confusion. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't think that anyone is helped by deleting this. I'd be happy to see all such templates replaced with the correct characters, but that should be done with a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks (perhaps once a year), and not by deleting a ten-year-old redirect that people might be accustomed to using as a short way to invoke the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could make the template a wrapper set to {{subst only|auto=yes}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The people who might be accustomed to this are exactly the people that would be helped by deleting this. Deletion would free them of the misconception that "---" could mean anything other than a 1-em dash, and correctly teach future editors who see {{---}}. As an analogy, this is equally helpful as nominating a template that only supported yyyy-dd-mm, to teach them that the correct way of using ISO dates is yyyy-mm-dd. This should be deleted under WP:RFD#DELETE 2. confusion and 5. nonsense, unless someone can cite a source that recommends "---" for a 3-em dash. (same IP editor) 173.206.105.221 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's job to teach editors that three hyphen-minuses, if rendered in plain text, will be interpreted as a single em dash by some people. People who can't figure out that typing {{---}} and typing --- all by itself are different are unlikely to be successful Wikipedia editors anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoo in

The mention in the article was removed in June 2012. Shoo-in was deleted in May 2024.

Personal commentary: shoe-in is a very annoying typo that I see quite frequently in Wikipedia discussions. Hopefully deletion will serve as a deterrent for that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 01:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anyone be opposed to me creating Shoo-in as a soft redirect to wikt:shoo-in? I figure this is the best place to ask, given the previous RFD seems to have been only attended by a blocked user. It's more valid than any of the three redirects up for discussion, and I think it has a case to exist even if these three get deleted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition lovers II

First time doing something like this, let me know if I've made a mistake. I believe this redirect should be deleted, especially to avoid confusion with the newly-created page for "Demolition Lovers". "Demolition Lovers II", from what I can tell, refers to the title of the album cover's artwork, but it is not referenced in the article (nor in reliable, secondary sources from a Google search). The redirect also seems to be rarely used, with Pageview Analysis showing only 121 uses over the past decade. In the case that this redirect ends up being kept, then it should at least be renamed to put it in title case. Thank you. Leafy46 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Hoot

Usage does not exist anywhere on the internet aside from this redirect. Page was at this title for all of two minutes. Rusalkii (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a transliteration into English. As is common, there are multiple "correct" translations. Just leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelore

Biology is about life, however this term seems odd. Biology used to have a #Etymology section that had: Historically there was another term for "biology" in English, lifelore; it is rarely used today. Later the entire #Etymology section was removed as: etymologies belong in wiktionary., and the suggestion was that these should go into a History section or a "History of" article, however this was not added back to Biology § History or History of biology. Without context, this redirect is confusing, as evidenced at another two RfDs for Life lore and Life-lore. Jay 💬 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary:lifelore per HKLionel. Also, a mention solely in the "External links" section doesn't adequately fix the issue since the redirect is not mentioned or identified in the body of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obscure, archaic synonym not mentioned at the target. Wiktionary soft redirects are harmful, as they inhibit searching within Wikipedia, and search results already display a Wikt link prominently if something has an entry there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...This redirect existing inhibits what while searching within Wikipedia? There is literally nothing other than the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any future mentions of this term on WP, or just confirmation of the fact that there are no mentions. It might not be much, but it's something. Meanwhile, searching for it if the soft redirect isn't there yields a link to the Wikitionary entry (with the start of the entry even), which is better. Wikt soft redirects are invariably bad, and I've never understood why people clutch at them as some sort of better alternative than the normal search result page. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playhouse Disney around the world

Is this needed though? RanDom 404 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned at target article. Unlikely to be a necessary search term. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the page history, this used to be a separate article but was moved when the channel name was changed. Later, the redirect was pointed to the current target. There is relevant content at both the original target and the current one. I don't think this should be deleted but unsure which article would be the better target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That former target, Disney Jr. (international), also does not mention this redirect. From searching, I'm still not entirely clear what Playhouse Disney around the world even is, and I don't see any reliable sources with which to add a mention anywhere. I'm unconvinced that this would be doing any good at either page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Playhouse Disney around the world" just means non-U.S. versions of the channel, which both the original and current targets discuss. There's no need to "add" a mention because it's just describing the subject of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or the weakest retarget to Disney Jr. (international) since Playhouse Disney changed their naming scheme (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). Delete, because of the unnatural grammar, retarget to match redirect Disney Junior around the world 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones Bonus Material

Not really that plausible. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High skool musical

Implausible typo. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky [talk] [gb] 16:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going Electric

Electric Dylan controversy is a better target for this phrase. The movie more or less is a derivative of the controversy. pbp 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the redirect creator, I won't say I'm strictly opposed to this, though I will say that this is specifically a working title of the film (mentioned in the second sentence of A Complete Unknown#Pre-production), so it's not directed there for no reason, and I did add a hatnote to A Complete Unknown linking to Electric Dylan controversy regarding this redirect. There is one instance of the words "going electric" in the latter article, but it doesn't appear that this precise phrase is closely associated with the controversy (at least as far as I can tell). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an official working title (and is capitalized as such), then I think we should keep the current target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Musk

MOS:DEADNAME, Vivian was not notable under her previous name, which is also not mentioned at the target article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems like all of the sources using the deadname are from after the name change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Deadname is not even mentioned at target article, nor anywhere else on site, and I don't think the articles linked above would be enough to justify its inclusion. That handful of mentions from multiple years prior to notability maybe barely scrapes past DEADNAME's requirements if applied conservatively, but I do not believe it is a guideline that should be used so loosely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. vivian was not notable before she transitioned, nobody would look her up by her deadname. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. She has become notable after her transition. cookie monster 755 09:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ Conservatives

This redirect exists only because a previous user mistakenly moved the article LGBT+ Conservatives here. "LGBTQ Conservatives" is not a name of that organization, so the redirect serves no purpose. It should be deleted. Dieknon (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism, which I imagine is what most readers typing in this redirect are probably looking for (and the current target is already in a hatnote there). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LGBTQ conservatism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


President Elon Musk

This would probably be a better redirect to criticism about Musk's role in the US federal government then his main article. cookie monster 755 11:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government article now focuses solely on lawsuits involving DOGE and is itself in the midst of a move discussion to make that clear. There may be a better target than the Elon Musk article, but Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government isn't it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Political activities of Elon Musk or Views of Elon Musk? cookie monster 755 09:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational hypnosis

Although A) this is a redir from page move so we might need to be somewhat cautious of external links and B) thanks to what I can only call a redirect-specific version of WP:CITEGENESIS where other sources use Wikipedia as a synonym site, NN videos have started using the term in THIS sense...

it should be worth noted that the majority of usecases of "recreational hypnosis" I could find referred to... well, "recreational hypnosis" - as in turning someone into a chicken or something. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LemonParty

this is definitely a shock site that exists (proof: i fell for it when i was 12. long story), however since it's not mentioned to any encyclopedic extent in this article I propose that this redirect should be deleted User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". For example, "not mentioned" is a valid reason to delete a redirect if is is a translation of the title of the article into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. Redirects should not be deleted if the connection to the subject is obvious or if the redirect is correct but not appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as {{R from brand name}}. If it bothers you, then I'd suggest editing the target article to add something like a brief mention (e.g., "such as LemonParty") somewhere.
    Additionally, it's getting a lot of traffic – about 2000 uses during the last year. That's more than about 85% of our articles. Deleting it is therefore likely to break incoming links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully RDELETE is not all encompassing and we can recognize redirects as misleading and deal with them. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's misleading: It's not deceptive. It doesn't create a false impression. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lemon Party, as the current target is misleading given that there's no information or mention there. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50/50 keep/delete, but do not retarget. This is one of those rare cases where a redirect without a mention might actually be somewhat useful. It's pretty plausible that someone looking for information here won't know the specific term "shock site", but may instead search for a well known example of one, and might be reasonably happy to find general information, even without specifics about the one they searched for. Meanwhile, the lack of a space makes the above proposed retarget pretty questionable, especially given the existence of the current target. On the other hand, there's no mention, so I'm not really all that opposed to a simple delete either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Musk

No reliable sources mentioned as "Vivian Musk". Absolutiva (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very plausible search term, seeing as she is notable for being her father's daughter, and it's reasonable to assume they would share a last name even though that isn't the case. No other Vivian Musks are mentioned on Wikipedia so it's not impeding any searches. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with QuietHere that this is a very plausible search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:DEADNAME. cookie monster 755 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_3
No tags for this post.