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. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutro → Transformers (toy line)#Micromasters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirected to Transformers (toy line)#Micromasters. Not mentioned at the target article, there is not even a section "Micromasters" any more as nearly all of the Transformers content on Wikipedia has been deleted. The only non-maintenance incoming link is from Dell Comics, and is about an unrelated comic book. There is no article about the comic book that I know of. I suggest to delete this. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it will serve as precedent for future Micromaster-related discussions as Wikipedia does not mention Micromasters anywhere any more. JIP | Talk 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This character is not mentioned in the target article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nutro dog food products as likely misspelling. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping for "delete" or "keep" as a precedent for future Micromaster-related redirects, but I suppose if the outcome is "retarget" then the precedent will be "delete", or no precedent will be set and we will continue to nominate the redirects case by case until a precedent is set. JIP | Talk 00:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RfD doesn't work on precedent. Each redirect always needs to be considered on its own merits. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the search results show a few things which are called Neutro or which are WP:PTMs for "Neutro". These trivial mentions aren't worth the effort of maintaining a disambiguation page, but people might still search for them, so it's better to show the search results for things actually called Neutro instead of redirecting searchers to Nutro, Neutron, or any of the other multiple terms for which this could be a typo/misspelling. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. While I think it's a near certainty that this will one day be deleted, it's not going to happen now, or in a week after a relist. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Master (upcoming Indian film) → Master (2021 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No longer upcoming, released in 2021. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, it has apparently been out for almost half a year now. JIP | Talk 10:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep the stats show this is still getting a huge number of page views (nearly 2000 in the 30 days preceding the nomination) so it's still serving the purpose of taking users to the target they are looking for. There are 10 incoming links from article space alone that will likely be driving much of this traffic, so update them and then reevaluate in a couple of months. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a policy to never name any article as "upcoming" or "recent" in the first place, as it will not stay that way. If there is need for disambiguation, absolute dates should be used. For example if there were to be an upcoming film "Master" released in 2030, the article should be titled Master (2030 Indian film). JIP | Talk 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact the guideline says to use Upcoming. See WP:UFILM. Jay ^(Talk) 15:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Release dates are frequently among the last bits of information about a film to be confirmed so phrases like "upcomming" or "future" are often going to be needed. In some cases disambiguations like "(Indian film)" or "(<name of director> film)" might be possible but not always, e.g. Master (Indian film) is nearly as ambiguous as just "(film)". Guesses of release dates are not appropriate as disambiguators. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all links in article namespace. Jay ^(Talk) 05:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now we just need to wait a couple of months after this RfD is closed to see whether that was driving all the traffic. It's like;y that was responsible for at least most, but we can't know whether there are links from external sites that are still generating significant traffic and if so how long it will continue. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now because it's clearly getting use. The redirect is currently used in ten mainspace links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and Tavix. This redirect is still getting a significant number of pageviews, so deletion would benefit no one at this point. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 04:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Puneet Vashisht → Harsh Vashisht  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect to a relative. Both actors, very little on either page and no indication that this one is notable. noq (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep since Puneet is mentioned briefly on his brother's page. This redirect is left over from draftification of an existing article; Draft:Puneet Vashisht reads in its entirety: "Puneet Vashisht is an Indian film and television actor." Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage creation of standalone article. Plenty of mentions in Wikipedia, and impressive IMDb page per the draft link provided by Ivan. - Jay ^(Talk) 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm generally opposed to redirecting one living adult's name to another BLP, unless they are discussed at length at that article. It simultaneously presents issues regarding WP:REDLINK, WP:ASTONISH, and WP:BLP. With few exceptions, a living person either: is notable enough that they should have an article, per REDLINK; is discussed at length in an article and their name can be redirected there; or is not discussed enough anywhere to justify a redirect. When redirecting to an article with only a brief mention, potential harms emerge both for the reader and for the subject. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puneet's useless redirect, but keep Harsh's since that has some content. Leaderboard (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jay and Tamzin. I'm also not as sure about potential notability as others seem to be. --Bejnar (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender. ✗plicit 06:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese → Gender neutrality in Spanish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Gender neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese → Gender neutrality in Spanish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The title covers two separate topics and can't possibly redirect to both. I recommend deleting per WP:XY now that Determinerteeth has created the page covering Portuguese. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added a very similar redirect to this discussion as whatever happens should happen to both. However, it is also important to note that both redirects are {{R from move}} as former locations for the target article which did originally cover both languages. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ideally we should retarget this to a higher level article so as to maintain the history and avoid breaking any incomming links. The most obvious target is Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender but that only mentions Portuguese in two specific examples so isn't great. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually like your idea better than deletion. The target article is not perfect in terms of content, but Determinerteeth's translation can be used to expand the Portuguese content there soon so I don't see it as a major blocker for retargeting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender per above. GreenComputer (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) 02:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tridemist china → Republic of China (1912–1949)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Searching google scholar, I was able to find no results for "tridemist", although there is some usage in what appear to be unreliable blogs. Delete unless stronger evidence of use or another justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Tridemism redirects to Three Principles of the People (not my redirect), "tridemism" is a slang term for the Three Principles of the People and this time in history, the Republic of China (1912-1949) was under the ideology of the Three Principles of the People (see Republic of China (1912-1949)#Government). ReaIdiot (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#D8 - obscure term, very hard to find usage of the word "tridemist". No views. I get the intent though: communism>communist, socialism>socialist, tridemism>tridemist. Three Principles of the People makes no mention that the China of 1912–1949 was the one that followed the philosophy. If there was, perhaps we could have a redirect like "China under tridemism" or similar, but avoiding the word "tridemist". - Jay ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It's not easy to judge a term that is both obscure and unambiguous, as I think this one is. But "Tridemist China" -wikipedia is still only showing me Wikipedia mirrors. One use on a blog post suggests we one used the term at Four Policemen. On balance, this looks too much like a neologism. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a year. I don't think I've ever !voted that before, but, as BDD says, this is both obscure and unambiguous. In such a case, the only way to know a term's merits are to look at usage, and we're missing one of the main potential usage indicators—pageviews. You can't trust pageviews from when a page is in the NPP queue or at RfD, meaning we have nothing to go off of. There's no harm in waiting a bit to see if readers find this term useful. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not bad advice generally, but the potential harm here is promoting a neologism. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ambiguous and, being a neologism, unsuitable for disambiguation because no page meets WP:DABMENTION and it wouldn't be appropriate to go around adding this term to articles. The government of China with the ode to "Tridemism" in its national anthem didn't cease to exist in 1949, it just relocated. Meanwhile Mao Zedong had his own interpretation of "Tridemism" (zh:新三民主義). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• While the original nomination was for getting context on the term "tridemist", it has been seen as a derivative of "tridemism" for which we have a page. And while Rosguill can confirm, the Rfd would now be about not only the merits of the term "tridemist", but also the fact that tridemist or tridemism does not have a mention at the current target. Jay ^(Talk) 06:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Shawano (mythology) → Anishinaabe traditional beliefs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion? Redirected word does not occur in target article, and apparently never did. Nothing links onto the redirect and it is extremely sparsely used acc. to statistics. Enyavar (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Shawnee. There's a very brief mention there, and probably could be expanded. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the word is mentioned at Shawnee, it doesn't seem to be in the context of anything mythological, unless I'm missing something. Rather: Algonquian languages have words similar to the archaic shawano (now: shaawanwa) meaning "south". However, the stem šawa- does not mean "south" in Shawnee and elsewhere a footnote saying Shawano was an archaic name for the tribes bearing these generic namesShaawanwa lenaki. [sic] Googling around, I see a few mythology-/religion-related things this could refer to, but none clearly enough to justify a redirect without mention. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 03:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Baconlung → 2009 swine flu pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Basically no pageviews, and appears to be almost never used in this context outside of wikipedia. This appears to be a novel or very obscure synonym per WP:RDELETE #8. Hog Farm _Talk 01:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In the first six pages of google hits for baconlung -Wikipedia I found exactly 1 use and three mentions (one of which was Urban Dictionary and the other two were proposing baconlung be used instead of swine flu. All the rest were related to a musical artist (or possibly two, I'm uncertain) and various usernames. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be pretty much a joke term only. JIP | Talk 17:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously a joke term. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 03:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The recent swine flu outbreak → 2009 swine flu pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Recent swine flu outbreak → 2009 swine flu pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As noted at Swine influenza, this is not the most recent swine flu outbreak, so I'm not sure why we should be pointing this here. As this seems to be a disease that pops up every so often, I'm not sure there's much value in pointing this to any specific outbreak. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if not deleted this would be better targetted at Swine influenza#History which lists all the notable pandemics and outbreaks so someone using the search term would find whichever one they were looking for whenever they are searching. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. It makes no sense to label anything as "the recent" because it will not stay recent. JIP | Talk 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These redirects would have to be constantly updated to be useful. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the spirit of MOS:DATED. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.