This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2025.

'Two Suns of Japan'

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 23:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only usage of this phrase online I can find, without the quotes, is this ?conspiracy theory? site, which doesn't mention the atomic bomb at all. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect serves no purpose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching with quotes I get the same results as the nom. Searching without quotes led me to a load of sites about Masami Teraoka's experience of witnessing the Hiroshima bombing, including the following quote "We stood on the street and looked at the sky, I pointed out that I see two suns," he says. "One was the real sun, the other was an atomic bomb. Usually people talk about mushroom clouds, but from where I was there was another sun over Hiroshima City that day.".[1] However there doesn't appear to be a single quote that stands out, he seems to have spoken about it many times using many different sets of words (as one would expect). This experience is not mentioned in our article about him, nor have I found it mentioned anywhere else on en.wp and there are no mentions of him at all on wikiquote nor does searching there for the phrase "two suns" bring up anything relevant. So while it might make a plausible search term without the quotes, we don't have any relevant content to direct people to so it wouldn't be a useful one as things stand. With the quote marks it's even less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 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).

University of Vancouver

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Clear consensus to disambiguate. Thanks to Thryduulf for drafting the disambiguation page at Vancouver University. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two universities in Vancouver, and while UBC is certainly the more well-known of the pair, SFU is not obscure or small. Cremastra (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's also a Vancouver Island University. I don't think this redirect is useful or helpful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 27 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).

Russia hoax

Came upon this redirect after mentions of it by the Trump administration following Signalgate. Do not think they meant the Steele dossier or Spygate (conspiracy theory). The more likely referants being Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, Russia investigation origins counter-narrative.

This should ideally be a disamb or perhaps rd'd to Russiagate. Gotitbro (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty sure this normally refers to the 2016 election investigations in the context of US politics. I guess it could refer to Zhemao hoaxes or Ramensky family hoax. So could maybe dab. GMGtalk 18:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the expression is a MAGA/Trump/fringe right-wing media attack and conspiracy theory against all investigations and accusations against Trump that are somehow related to Russia, I think List of -gate scandals and controversies would be a good target for both redirects as Russiagate is covered there. They should not be dignified by directing them at serious and real investigations. List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump is another, but Russiagate is not covered there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expect there will be some confusion if a reader lands on a page that includes things like Watergate and Gamergate. GMGtalk 19:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! You're right. My mind wandered to Russiagate. Will strike that part. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. My sense is that if someone searches on either Russia hoax or The Russia hoax, they're looking for what's described in the first sentence of the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative article: "narrative embraced by Donald Trump, Republican Party leaders, and right-wing conservatives attacking the legitimacy and conclusions of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and the links between Russian intelligence and Trump associates." They might be hoping that they'll find an article that buys into that narrative, but they're not going to find that anywhere on WP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: and @GreenMeansGo: what do you think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100. I reserve 20% for being US-centric. But I'm not gonna whine about it. GMGtalk 22:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Russia investigation origins counter-narrative appears fine, I think broader topics are meant by the term including the investigation itself. I still lean towards a disamb. Gotitbro (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey+wiking

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 per WP:G6. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Viking is how the ferry was originally called, but "Mersey+wiking" is completely implausible. There are three errors here (spelling, spacing and the plus sign), and my web searches revealed zero results. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible combination of errors. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unlikely to be helpful, not used anywhere else on the internet. 00:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error, see the move immediately after it was made. Also, could someone bundle Merseywiking for the same reason? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:38, 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).

Chocolate teapot

The target section no longer exists, and the word "chocolate" doesn't even appear in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:A520:4089:C5D3:5942 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Yak Ranch

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. Cited mention now exists at target article. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Per search engine research, it seems that the subject of this redirect is a venture that was established by the target of this redirect, but the target lacks any information identifying and describing the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The Star Yak Ranch is now mentioned in the article, with a local radio station reference mentioning the ranch by name. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:26, 27 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).

Unmentioned Jeffree Star songs and EPs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Unmentioned Jeffree Star songs and EPs

One Chicago

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 4#One Chicago

Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation

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 💬 14:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the target article's title for less than a month in 2005 and the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation, but I don't think that justifies having such an utterly implausible and confusing redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:23, 27 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).

Victim theory

This term seems to be used for Victimology as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw such a usage here, but I'm not convinced that it is a more widespread usage than the Austria victim theory. Maybe we could put a hatnote on Austria victim theory? Like so:
StainedGlassCavern (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @StainedGlassCavern; if the term is not widely used outside of the Austrian usage, then a hatnote is in order. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 23:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.