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 23:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alliance for Unity" → All for Unity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:UNNATURAL, no reason to have the title in quotes. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Enix150 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it’s very unlikely that anyone would search for this alternate name in quotation marks. Alliance for Unity is already a redirect, so this one is completely unnecessary. ApexParagon (talk) 21:10, 11 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 23:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alaska back to Russia" petitions for secession → Secession in the United States#State secession  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Extremely unlikely and unnatural search term. Was an article for less than an hour in 2014, the subject of the article is not mentioned at the target. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nom, and the topic does not seem supported by sources; a Google search for "Alaska back to Russia" only brings up calls by Russian political figures for Alaska's return to Russia, which are hardly petitions for secession—more like fatuous foreign political posturing. Carguychris (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Enix150 (talk) 01:34, 10 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. After over two months at RfD and three relists, it seems unlikely that a consensus will form any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Bangladeshi detainees at Guantanamo Bay → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Bangladesh captives held in Guantanamo → List of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

deletion, there are no Bangladeshi Guantanamo Bay detainees. this redirect suggests that there are. this redirect should be deleted as it serves no purpose.
Tausheef Hassan (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mubarak Hussain Bin Abul Hashem's article states that he is a Bangladeshi who was held at Guantanamo. WikiBlame is giving me HTTP 504 errors so I can't check if he was previously mentioned at the target and been removed for some reason. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps (old version) of 2010 mentions him from this source ^[1] of department of defense. the link is currently unavailable and wayback machine achieve gives "one pakistan/bangladeshi and one bangladeshi" I couldn't find if the original article ever mentioned him or why they didn't mention him. However, I believe that having only one or two individuals may not justify the need for a redirect. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also bundle Bangladeshi detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps. Jay 💬 15:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling both redirects mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator's presumption appears incorrect and there is no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No entries from Bangladesh in that list. Delete unless there is another target. Jay 💬 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Mubarak Hussain Bin Abul Hashem be added to the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees? Plant🌱man (talk) 06:04, 29 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 💬 18:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Most obscure topics covered → Wikipedia:Unusual articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Obscurity might not always correlate with unusualness. Xeroctic (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:00, 10 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) 20:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 271k → Holocaust denial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The anti-semitic claim that 271k Jews were killed is not mentioned in the target article. Chuterix (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 09:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a straightforward delete, so didn't provide any reasoning. Then the nomination got relisted... 271K is a specific number that apparently comes from a document in the Special Registry Office in Bad Arolsen, Germany per this reddit discussion. Unless this fact is mentioned at some article, this redirect is pointless and leads to no useful information that a reader would be looking for. Both for those who know the significance of this number and those who don't. Jay 💬 10:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 14:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mention is in the lead as "The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately six million." No, this doesn't mention the exact number that antisemites use, but remember that redirects are not typically user-facing-- if the USER has typed in this number, then they likely know what it refers to to begin with. This article will inform them that the number is wrong, right there in the lead. This utility remains even without naming the number expressly, because again, the user has already provided the number and knows what it is. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm not convinced by Fieari's argument, this just comes across as a random number and, if it's not mentioned at all, it's an unexpected target from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Assume you are a neo-nazi or in the neo-nazi sphere due to the alt-right algorithmic pipeline. You "learn" that "only 271k jews were actually killed in the holocaust". You want to find more information about this! You check the holocaust article, but just see the true fact that the number is closer to 6 million. Confused, you decide to search wikipedia to the exact number you were given. You are taken to the holocaust denial article where it explains that neo-nazis falsely claim the number is far lower than the truth. How is this confusing? What other reason would someone type this number into the search bar? If we remove this redirect, we will fail to educate someone that needs education. If we keep this redirect... who is confused or WP:ASTONISHed? What would they be looking for OTHER than this? Fieari (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have never heard of this claim before but if I wanted to know more about it I would expect to be redirected to an article discussing it. As OP mentioned, this is not the current case, and I couldn't find any other references to the claim in Wikipedia. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:29, 17 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 💬 10:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Indy NXT → Indy NXT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No information at the target about the 2026 event. Delete as misleading to anybody who searches for this title and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was looking at the Formula 2 and Formula 3 2025 season pages and they have a 2026 Formula 2 Championship and 2026 FIA Formula 3 Championship page. I thought I would just do that for Indy NXT as well, but if you want to delete it, that's fine. SteeledDock541 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:49, 6 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. It doesn't seem like there is going to be any form of consensus formed here. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cephalobaenida → Cephalobaena  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I’m putting this up again, for the reason that Invavita is also a cephalobaenid. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jlwoodwa, Loopy30, and CycloneYoris: pinging the previous participants and closer, in case this is a Speedy. Jay 💬 19:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WikiProject Palaeontology should be canvassed to determine if Wikipedia should follow either PBDB (classifying Invavita as a cephalobaenid) or Henga et al. (2020) (that places Invavita as a genus within the parent subclass Pentastomida). As Henga did not explicitly state that Invavita was "not" a cephalobaenid, I lean towards supporting the PBDB view in this matter. Loopy30 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siveter et al. (2015) provisionally assigned it to the Cephalobaenida. Typical convention is that Invavita would be listed with a question mark in the taxobox (if Cephalobaenida had its own article), or Cephalobaenida would redirect to Pentastomida. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @IC1101-Capinatator: What outcome were you expecting with this (and the previous) nomination? Were you expecting Cephalobaenida to be deleted because it can point to multiple targets, or were you looking for disambiguation? Should there be a separate discussion at WP:WikiProject Palaeontology? Jay 💬 11:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly? I’m not sure. I was probably thinking of it having its own page like Offacolidae, but it seems superfluous now that I think about it more. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 13:24, 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 no consensus. Jay 💬 21:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstitial fauna → Meiobenthos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Interstitial" is not mentioned at the target, and I think the term may be ambiguous with Microfauna. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial fauna are those "Animals that inhabit the spaces between individual sand grains. The term is often used synonymously with meiofauna, mesofauna, and microfauna" (source) I assume interstitial fauna include both meiofauna (45 μm to 1 mm) and microfauna, but not larger fauna. Meiofauna is probably the best target but not ideal. The Interstitial disambiguation page has "Interstitial fauna, small aquatic invertebrates, larger than microfauna but smaller than macrofauna" (unsourced), which might be an alternative target, but has been proposed for deletion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested including one (Interstitial) that has an AfD in progress following a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: Meiofauna is itself a redirect to the current target. Are you suggesting the current target is probably the best (but not ideal)? Jay 💬 20:34, 18 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. There is a consensus that this title is a plausible search term but that no suitable article currently exists. Further there is agreement that this is not the best title for that article, so editors are encouraged to write the article a different title (several possibilities have been suggested below) and to create a redirect from this title to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cybersexism → Cyberbullying  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Sexism is not restricted to bullying, and the target does not talk a lot about it anyway. There is wikt:cybersexism, but apart from that I am not sure how much relevant content we have to point the reader at. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Wiktionary redirect rare term that is too vague to point a specific article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to sexism as {{r from hyponym}} and tag as {{r with possibilities}}, per "Cybersexism: How Gender and Sexuality Are at Play in Cyberspace ". Paradoctor (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Traumnovelle and WP:RETURNTORED (though maybe, given the concerns expressed at the essay WP:AVOIDCYBER, a future article wouldn't be at this exact title). Search results are probably the best we can do for now as they show the Wiktionary definition, online gender-based violence, and Laurie Penny's book. Sexism doesn't contain any discussion of sexism in "cyber" contexts, so would not be a useful target. Online gender-based violence does mention the word "cybersexism" but isn't quite an exact subtopic/supertopic (as that article itself points out), so I don't think retargeting there probably would be much improvement on the current situation. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either sectionize if reliable sources are found, or redirect to Wiktionary otherwise. 67.209.129.142 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. I did not get what IP meant by "sectionize", perhaps it is to create a section about the subject in some article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I generally agree with the essay WP:AVOIDCYBER, that articles should generally avoid cyber-whatever, and article titles as well, however I definitely believe that cyber-whatever is appropriate for redirects, as while not being very specific on a technical level, it is commonly used by laymen and rhetoricians of various sorts. This term fits that bill, and I feel like it SHOULD have a target... except the target I would expect is not an article. I'm genuinely shocked we don't have an article on Sexism on the internet! Not that I feel qualified to write one, mind you. The closest topic I think might be related to how "cybersexism" is used would be Sexism and video games, regarding the portion discussing online harassment of female gamers in voice chat and such. Another potential target might be Gamergate (harassment campaign), which also includes harrassment of female journalists. But... the term would also apply to harassment of women and girls in other online social spaces such as social media (including old school social media, such as chat rooms, forums, newsgroups, etc). Is a partial subject match good enough? I don't know. Maybe WP:RETURNTORED is the proper idea to encourage article creation, except that the article should NOT be created at cybersexism, but rather at something like Sexism on the internet or Online sexism or something along those lines, with cybersexism being a redirect to that article. Not sure how to handle this. Fieari (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fieari. May be recreated as a redirect once one of the redlinks mentioned by Fieari becomes an article. Jay 💬 17:39, 17 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 23:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jee Star → Tyla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at at target nor is there any indication why this should point to this singer. Whpq (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Probably vandalism because most edits of the creator (now blocked) were reverted. Jay 💬 18:43, 13 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lukas Miklos → List of Left Behind characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirected at AfD in 2009, no longer mentioned on the list of characters from this series, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He's mentioned at The Indwelling, The Mark (novel), and Desecration (novel). I read these books in the mid-2010s but I have no memory of this character or his role in the books, which probably isn't a good sign. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the options at the AfD was to merge into the list. If that cannot be done, take back to AfD since it has been 15 years. Jay 💬 14:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And also consider AfDing the target as poorly-sourced fancruft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• do the things pppery said per pppery consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:22, 11 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Odenpa Love Girl → Characters of Touhou Project#Cirno  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

unmentioned meme, unnotable, results gave me nothing. i have no idea what else can be said so here's a ⑨ consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even before the nomination, the target had been turned into a redirect at its AfD to Touhou Project. Notified of this discussion there and at the creator's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turn that ⑨ into a Ⓞ (there is no circled digit 0) - unnotable song (I wouldn't call it a "meme" as from a quick listen it sounds like someone made this as a serious fan project) by an unnotable producer, nowhere near Bad Apple!! feat. nomico levels User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if ⑨ is associated with cirno, and ⑥ is associated with utsuho (if only because she does the opposite of what cirno does, while being just as dumb)... who would 0 be associated with? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:23, 10 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 Rise or Die Trying. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope → Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Rather low pageview count. RanDom 404 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't watched the movie but from some Googling I'm unsure what this phrase has to do with it. It appears to be the title of a song from Rise or Die Trying, but I wouldn't retarget to there because there's essentially no discussion of the song on that page. Aprzn (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator hasn't presented a reason to have the redirect deleted: "Low view count" means that the redirect is being searched by someone, and thus makes it de facto helpful (unless it is determined the target is wrong ... but such a claim hasn't been presented yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No rationale for deletion given. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While the nominator did not provide a valid reason, Aprzn has demonstrated that there is clearly some ambiguity here. The song certainly gets far more hits on Google than anything related to the movie. — Anonymous 20:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Rise or Die Trying. I agree the nomination is insufficient, but there's no mention of this at the target, and it's not even clear what this has to do with the target. On the other hand, this is the title of a track on the album, so redirecting there is generally pretty standard. On the other other hand, it's not all that useful either, so I wouldn't be that opposed to simply deleting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943 and Fieari: Later participants have tried to provide a rationale. Would you wish to reconsider? Jay 💬 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to where it is mentioned. Even the later rationales don't present any convincing reason why deletion would be an improvement of retargetting. 19:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
• Retarget or Delete per IP. These are better options than keeping at the current target per Aprzn. Jay 💬 05:52, 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 Venue inappropriate. Nominated at AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Median of the trapezoid theorem (non-admin closure) — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Median of the trapezoid theorem → Trapezoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An article might not have notability for having its own article, and possibly to be deleted instead. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:10, 6 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 💬 10:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Connected two point set → Particular point topology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The trivial topology on a two-point set (or any other set) is also connected, and this does not seem like a likely search term anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; can't see much (haha) connection between the redirect and the target. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 6 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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney Cartoon Studios → Walt Disney Pictures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Walt Disney Pictures is the division focusing on live-action films. Walt Disney Animation Studios is its animation sector. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as either a {{R from former name}} (per the article) and/or a {{R from subtopic}} (per the nominator's description). Either way, a variation of the redirect is currently mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RanDom 404: seeing as consensus has been established to keep, do you think {{R from former name}} or {{R from subtopic}} is more appropriate? it's lio! | talk | work 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943 and since a variation appears at the target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Walt Disney Animation Studios referenced in the nomination also has mention of the "variation" Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio (DBCS) which targets the animation studio article (since 2010). So I would rather support the nomination's retarget suggestion. Jay 💬 16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist🩸 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Walt Disney Animation Studios. Both articles claim the same history from when the name was "Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio", but per nom, it makes more sense to target the studio that makes cartoons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lasalle College, Bogota → LaSalle College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of a "Bogota" branch at the target article. The only content that made it to the main page was immediately reverted in 2013. People who are looking for the Bogota branch of LaSalle College will not be able to read about it at the target page without a mention. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, preserves edit history. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect is not helpful per nom. Delete it at AfD. Jay 💬 15:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not seeing anything to do with "Bogota" at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't see any reason to bother AfD with this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @J947 and Jay: any responses? it's lio! | talk | work 13:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The pre-BLAR content was just one edit that was sourced to a primary source. I don't know if it can be cleaned up and re-sourced, or merged in to another article. Clicking on the old link takes to a new website for Bogota. Jay 💬 15:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability has been presented so there's no need to kick this to AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jd v → JD Vance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely capitalization of an already unlikely name - we don't have JD V. A search pulls up "JD v. something", as in versus, and an assortment of pages that seem to just have "JD Vance" on them, I can't find the bare JD V used to refer to him anywhere. Rusalkii (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator): no other article could be referred to by Jd v, it is unambiguous and helps a reader out. With this in mind, I am not opposed to creating JD V. Note: I added {{R from lowercase}} to Jd v. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: an obscure formatting that would likely only be used by the creating user —ADavidB 07:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mistakenly adding a space within a JDV search seems a likely way this redirect would be accessed. There are seven other entries in that disambiguation page. —ADavidB 16:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ADavidB. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to JDV seems the best choice. —ADavidB 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With Jay's comments, I'm back to Delete. —ADavidB 13:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to JDV as a {{R from alternate capitalization}}. No evidence that Vance is the primary topic for this initialism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)
• Delete per ADavidB. Enix150 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ADavidB. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per reason provided by @Adavidb. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget to JDV -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss if retargeting or deletion would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - recently created and unnecessary. While I understand how these are the first letters of the current target, I don't understand what reader will use this codified name. Oppose the WP:ATD retarget to the dab because we don't create redirects with random spaces within initialisms. Jay 💬 10:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per reasons Jay and ADavidB originally provided. It's unlikely we'll ever need a redirect for every dab with every possible space combination. Wozal (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely space. I'm shocked at how controversial deletion is, but eh, consensus is the rule here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would support redirect J dV (and j dv) to the JDV dab page as it is a plausible initialisation of the people with "de" as part of their last name, but that does not hold for Jd v (in any capitalisation). The uses of this spacing I'm seeing are exclusively using the "v" as an abbreviation of "versus", almost entirely in UK legal citations (e.g. "JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust"). One result is related to JD Vance, a 2004 headline in the Catholic Herald "JD v. NYT: Vance takes his Catholic Faith to a sceptical New York Times" where "Vance" and "versus" both starting with V is just coincidence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 29 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).