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 Denied (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Denied (song) → Denial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term -- lomrjyo ^talk 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Oz Factor, where Denied (Unwritten Law song) redirects-it might or might not be what's meant by this redirect, but it is still the only one with a Wikipedia redirect. Back when the song had an article titled Denied, this redirected there, but it got taken to the current target along with the original title when the page was moved. Also, if someone can find other songs with that title, I'm also open to disambiguating or setindexifying this redirect. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to a disambiguation page There are numerous non-notable songs by this name, but per WP:INCDAB we should not disambiguate this title directly. I have started Draft:Denied (disambiguation) but I am not sure whether that should be a separate page or get merged into the existing Denial (disambiguation) instead. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate roll over with the new disambiguatiion page per the above -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Move Draft:Denied (disambiguation) to mainspace. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to new DAB if its decided to split the DAB as there are songs called "Denied" even if they don't have articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2022 (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 CTS#Television. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CTS (television) → Chinese Television System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I would like to see someone retarget CTS (television) to CTS#Television in a week please. Bassie f (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Present target seems appropriate. Miniapolis 01:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. This abbreviation could refer to multiple television networks. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2022 (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 speedy delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Booger King → Burger King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely and derogatory name. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A common pejorative nickname for the target, plausible search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not even mentioned in the target article, so readers won't find what they are looking for there if looking up this term; if we have nothing for the reader to find, we probably shouldn't make readers believe we do. That, and Wikipedia isn't a comprehensive list of pejoratives, especially if the term isn't notable. Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from incorrect name}} redirects need not be mentioned to be useful and appropriate redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned here or anywhere else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable pejorative nickname. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It does not make sense. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be an WP:ATTACK PAGE. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 and G10 (I've just tagged it). Although I initially created this redirect because googling the title does bring up some prior usage, I think that the title is sufficiently rare and offensive that the redirect isn't worth keeping around. Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2022 (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 soft redirect to Wikt:mephitic. Consensus is fully in favor of a soft redirect with good arguments. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 14:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mephitic → Nitrogen#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This does not necessarily refer to nitrogen. Redirecting to the wikt:mephitic Wiktionary entry might be more helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect per nom. There are a few articles that use the word, and pretty much all of them define it alongside the use, which suggests that someone looking this up is most likely looking for a definition. Mephitic air also redirects to Nitrogren but I think that is actually a good redirect as the term is specific and the connection is explicitly given. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per the above. "Mephitic" by itself does not refer specifically to nitrogen. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:01, 1 October 2022 (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. Legoktm (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pseudohiemalorachnus → Nenoxites  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, zero hits on Google Scholar, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it is listed at List of Ediacaran genera where it is attributed to Grytsenko 2009 and noted as a "junior synonym of Nenoxites". I don't know whether that is correct (Google scholar does find a couple of possibly relevant papers that cite "Grytsenko (2009)" but that's as far as I've been able to get in verifying it) but if it is then maybe a mention should be added to the target and/or the redirect retargetted to that list? If it isn't correct then the list should be corrected. This would probably benefit from the attention of someone with knowledge of the relevant subject area. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:It may be deleted, although if evidence is found leading to it being a correct re-direct, it should be put on the List of Ediacaran Genera page, since there it says "Junior Synonym of Nenoxites" without citing any reference. I did this in order to clean up the many non-redirections on the page. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The synonym this refers to should be Pseudohiemaloraichnus, I assume. As a typo of a name generally considered a synonym, this would be a very unlikely search term. For the record, the name is published here, on page 4. Felix QW (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after the properly spelled Pseudohiemaloraichnus is created. Jay 💬 05:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect per Jay. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That would create edit histories on the wrong titles in a completely avoidable situation, so this should not be done. Rather, a new redirect should be created on the other page (which I just did.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For closing the September 14 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create properly spelled redirect per Felix QW and Jay. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pseudohiemaloraichnus has been created. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (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 but nothing in the discussion precludes recreation as a list if someone wishes to do so. Legoktm (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Philadelphia railway station → 30th Street Station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While 30th Street is the largest station in Philadelphia, it is not the only station in Philadelphia with the other center city stations having a fair share of volume of traffic as well as many other stations around the city. It's also not the only Amtrak station in the city with Amtrak stopping at Cornwells Heights station and North Philadelphia station within the city limits as well. In summary, delete as there are many railway stations in Philadelphia. TartarTorte 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have no issue with the below proposals. BUT, I will note that since its creation in January, this redirect has 10 pageviews (with no data for September). In other words, this is not really a plausible search term or a useful redirect as it's really too vague to be useful. But all the same, I guess it's better to help those 10 people with a retargeting or listifying. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transportation in Philadelphia#Railways, where there is relevant content including mentions of multiple stations. This will likely get the reader to the information they are looking for. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Presidentman or Listify. This is an extremely plausible search term that should not be a red link, but it is ambiguous so we should take readers to a list of stations they could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also be comfortable with listfying. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inherently confusing, like most redirects by a certain jailbroken iPod. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, retargeting to a list of stations would be the best solution, but creating a list is asking too much from an RfD closer. Deletion is actionable, and it can remain that way until a list is created. Transportation in Philadelphia#Railways does not contain a list of stations, so would not be a cromulent solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some reason Category:Railway stations in Philadelphia doesn't work as a target? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Only a desire to avoid cross-namespace redirects when there is a suitable target in the namespace searched (main in this instance). If people don't think the suggested section or list is appropriate then targetting the category is preferable to deletion by a significant margin. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is subway station same as railway station? Because we have List of Philadelphia subway stations. Jay 💬 05:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While subway stations are a type of railway station the inverse is not true. In this context a list of subway stations and a list of railway stations are not the same and so that would not be good target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Trainsandotherthings and El cid, el campeador that this may not be a plausible search term, so delete. The redirect would have existed long back if it was the case, and exists now only because the creator went on a redirect creation spree. Agree that there can be a List of Philadelphia railway stations or Lists of Philadelphia railway stations. Creation of a list or list of lists is a separate effort. Jay 💬 09:16, 7 October 2022 (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 Advance-fee scam#Employment scams. Legoktm (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Job scam → Confidence trick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Employment scam → Confidence trick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Employment scams → Confidence trick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

This seems to mean something different than the article subject — specifically, a fake job listing.[1][2] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this seems like a "redirect to avoid double redirect" to Employment scams which was an article ([3]) before being redirected to Confidence trick. There is also Employment scam with the same target. Perhaps that article could be restored and sent to AfD? I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Advance-fee scam#Employment scams and retarget Employment scam and Employment scams there too. The BLARed article at the latter described the subject as a type of advance-fee scam. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Advance-fee scam#Employment scams: A vast majority (if not all) employment scams are a form of advanced-fee scam in that they all, at some point, involve paying someone for money you're to later not actually receive. Retarget Employment scam and Employment scams per above. Also tag Employment scam with {{R from avoided double redirect|Employment scams}} TartarTorte 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Bundled Employment scam and Employment scams as this discussion has turned out to be exclusively about these. Jay 💬 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:45, 30 September 2022 (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 23:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoneda lambda → Yoneda lemma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely typo; can't even attest this a single time online. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - surely not a typo but a reference in some sense to the Greek letter lambda? Not that I can find a connection in that sense either! No λ appears in the target and searching online didn't turn anything up. A7V2 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean yes; probably should have said this was kind of a slip of the tongue rather than a regular typo. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably people who accidentally hit this redirect were thinking of lambda calculus when they typed it. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly created in confusion, conflating a Greek letter with the concept of lemma, whose origins have absolutely nothing to do with the Greek alphabet (let alone being a letter unto itself). Likewise, the Greek letter in question has never meant anything close to what the concept of lemma actually is. If people are going to create redirects, they need to at least know what they're talking about. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible typo. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:51, 6 October 2022 (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 Replace current uses and Retarget to Template:Programming languages. There seems to be consensus to retarget. All uses are replaced where appropriate per Steel1943, then retargetted. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Programming language → Template:Types of programming languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This confused me for a good five minutes. It should redirect to Template:Programming languages instead. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this would have been controversial, so instead of starting a TFD discussion it might have been easier to just WP:BEBOLD and change the target. Speedy retarget per nom. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting the redirect WP:BOLDly would have potentially broken stuff since the redirect has transclusions and current target and the proposed target are navigation box templates; the redirect's transclusions should probably be bypassed to at the least ensure all the transclusions pass WP:LINKBACK. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget since readers are likely to be surprised and confused by this redirect. See WP:PLA. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1020:7666:46FD:5CD5 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect currently has 52 transclusions that need to be bypassed prior to the discussion being closed to ensure the transclusions refer to the correct template. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (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 and salt. The strong sentiment below combined with the previous discussion and the evasion of the salting of that title means there is no chance of any other outcome so I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonichu comic → Kiwi Farms#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 § Sonichu—gaming the system. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious attempt at dodging the salt. I'm often ok with non-neutral redirects pointing at strongly connected targets that happen not to mention the redirect term. This connection is far too loose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per previous discussion linked above. Topic is not mentioned at target and the only purpose of this redirect is to perpetuate harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. WP:BLP. 0xDeadbeef 10:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The article does not mention the comic or its artist by name and the consensus so far has generally been to not include the name. Unless/until there's a consensus to add either the name of the comic or artist, there's no need to a redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. There is nothing good here and never will be. This redirect was named in bad faith to dodge the existing saltings. This name is not even mentioned in target, nor should it be. Creator is indefinitely blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The article Wikipedia is not about the article Wikipedia. Such an article would be titled something like Wikipedia (Wikipedia article). To my knowledge, we only have one Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article: Jar'Edo Wens hoax. Perhaps someday we will have a Wikipedia article about the Wikipedia article Wikipedia, but until then, a redirect like Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The target is Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia, so it is Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone searching on this term is looking for Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia, i.e. the current target. There are other articles about articles, Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident and some of the other articles in Category:Wikipedia controversies but that's not relevant to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is indeed Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Another hoax is Henryk Batuta hoax. Jay 💬 08:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Perhaps not the most plausible search term, but it gets the reader to the article they were looking for. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Totally meta, but the redirect isn't targeting an erroneous location. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It may not be a completely plausible redirect, but it's still exactly what's promised by the redirect, as people have argued above me. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 23:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's plausible that someone would type this if they find it awkward to just type "Wikipedia" into the search bar. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tag as {{R from search term}} -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as {{R from search term}} per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There was Draft:Donald Trump (Wikipedia article). Perhaps in rare cases there can be a Wikipedia article on a Wikipedia article but in most cases the information would just go in the original article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2022 (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 speedy delete. CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Virgin with rage → Incel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-neutral term that is not mentioned at target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Judging by google results, readers searching for this term are unlikely to be looking for general information about incels. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This actually qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:R3 (recently-created, implausible redirect). The fact that it's "non-neutral" is irrelevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-neutral redirects are held to a higher standard under WP:RNEUTRAL. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in Enwiki, but ambiguous, being the title of several songs. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not implausible (and so not an R3 candidate) given that many incels are virgins who rage about being virgins but google results don't tie the term clearly to that. As it's not mentioned anywhere it isn't suitable for disambiguation either. Thryduulf (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not mentioned in the target and not relevant in many (most?) cases. Not all incels are virgins and virgins can experience rage for many other reasons. Maybe their team lost or they stubbed their toe or something... --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whether or not it's true, it's a descriptive term which is not mentioned at the target or otherwise known to act as a synonym for the title. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator's account has now been locked as an LTA, so I have tagged for G5 speedy deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:43, 30 September 2022 (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. Legoktm (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Original Bible for Modern Readers → Bible  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was BLARred in 2013 for being a non-notable edition of the Bible. As such, it is not mentioned in the article on the Bible. To me, nothing about this edition of the Bible seemed notable, as I could find pretty much no coverage of it that would push it close to WP:GNG. Without it being mentioned at the target (and seemingly nowhere else on wikipedia), deletion seems appropriate. TartarTorte 01:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD. The content there would be an A7 in many fields, but books are not eligible and no other speedy deletion criterion is relevant so it needs to go to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This was an article for 8 minutes and a redirect for almost a decade; the status quo is easily as a redirect so RfD is the correct forum. The article content has no chance to be kept at AfD, so restoring the article just to delete it elsewhere is a waste of time. If someone wants to make a case for keeping the article, I am willing to reconsider. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alternate option: redirect to List of English Bible translations or World English Bible, which notably do not currently mention it. This version is a very minor revision of the World English Bible so a redirect there may be appropriate if the article is updated. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD revert to article, and send to AfD. -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix and WP:NOTBURO. Sending to AFD would be a waste of editor time. Levivich (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Talk:World English Bible and Talk:List of English Bible translations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm usually a great fan of recognizing obscure Bible translations, but this one is beyond obscure. No sign of it being noted by others. The only Google Scholar citation is a book by the translator. Pete unseth (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)/p>[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 05:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NBC Olympics. → Olympic Channel (American TV channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target page was moved to this title "because the network will shut down" — but I don't see why that would necessitate moving the article. The redirect itself does not seem useful — the more logical target for an NBC Olympics redirect is NBC Olympic broadcasts (and NBC Olympics indeed redirects there), but the period seems unlikely to be included in any searches. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Version free of punctuation already exists and punctuation was never once part of the network's name. Hard pressed to see why it was deemed necessary here.

Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Zeke. The network may shut down in the future, but that's no reason to put a period there-people'd be searching it without the punctuation regardless. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is unlikely somebody would deliberately search for this channel using the odd punctuation in the redirect. The search engine is good enough to take care of such cases. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1020:7666:46FD:5CD5 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Implausible variant ending with a period. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 1 October 2022 (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.