March 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2025.

Semi-Protected

This redirect was created in the wrong namespace. I've moved it to the correct namespace and fixed any links pointing to it (with three remaining, but they're all archives). — W.andrea (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia#Restrictions, the most specific section of the Wikipedia article dealing with this concept. Silcox (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This retargeting would align the redirect with other redirects that live in mainspace, pertain to protection levels, and point to the Wikipedia#Restrictions section, such as the Extended confirmed protected redirect. Silcox (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bronchomoniliasis

Not mentioned in any article on the English Wikipedia; the target does not talk about the bronchial infection. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an article though the article in its current state needs to be fleshed out. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50mMidas

The target does not mention 50mMidas and it keeps getting hijacked by WP:MEAT or UPE trying to create an article about Justin Jin which has been deleted several times (ex. here) and at Simple. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/50mMidas and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shewasafairy. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Repeated hijacking is a reason to protect, not delete, but this name is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia so it should be deleted for that reason independent of the recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf Plant🌱man (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of" redirects to people who are alive

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 per WP:SNOW. Note that Death of Dick Wolf was deleted by Samwalton9 per WP:G3 before this close. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the header says, all the three persons are still alive. It's way too soon for these redirects to exist, even if the deaths are going to happen someday. Furthermore, none of the articles have any content on death hoaxes or rumours (which could have been alternative possible targets). All three redirects were created by the same editor, who was blocked for disruptive editing. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as potentially confusing. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if these people were dead, it would make no sense to redirect "Death of [name]" to "[name]#Death". Why would someone search for that? 2603:6011:9440:D700:642C:E278:807A:FE06 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to search for "Death of [name]" if the person was actually dead, but that isn't the case here... Plant🌱man (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually very common for "Death of [name]" redirects to exist for people who are dead, especially when their death was due to something other than old age. Indeed, it's how we title articles this way when that is the reason for their notability or there is just so much encyclopaedic to say. See Special:Prefixindex/Death_of. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Silcox (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just sent the Death of Bill Cosby redirect to RfD for similar reasons. Silcox (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link. Silcox (talk) 06:48, 2 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).

Sush

This retarget requires a few layers of abstraction (Sūsh is an alternative form, and removing a diacretic would result in Sush) in it's current form, when in actuality most of the people using this in day-to-day usage mean sushi (which ALSO requires a few layers of abstraction, being a slang term) so I think this should either be weak retargeted to sushi or deleted. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 15:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify I made a potential list below for consideration:

Places

People
Nickname or pseudonym

Arts, entertainment, and media
Characters

  • Sush, a character in the Indian soap opera Bhabi
  • Sush, a character in the Indian psychological thriller film Dastak

See also


-- Lenticel (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should also probably put “Sushi” in the “see also” section per what is said in the nomination. Plant🌱man (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with that --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gasparilla Bowl

No relevant information at the target about the event, making it misleading for anybody who searches for the term and expects to find relevant information about the event. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Retarget – The 2025 Gasparilla Bowl is an upcoming event scheduled for December 2025. Year-specific redirects for annual sporting events are common practice, as they help users looking for information about a specific edition of the event. Even if full details (such as teams or exact date) are not available yet, the redirect serves a useful purpose by guiding users to the main Gasparilla Bowl page, which will eventually be updated with relevant information.
If the main Gasparilla Bowl page is lacking details on the 2025 edition, improving that article would be a more constructive approach rather than deleting the redirect. Alternatively, if necessary, the redirect could be retargeted to a relevant page such as a list of future bowl games. However, outright deletion is unnecessary, as this event will take place, and users searching for "2025 Gasparilla Bowl" should have a direct path to related information. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Year-specific redirects for annual sporting events are common practice, as they help users looking for information about a specific edition of the event. – Exactly, hence, why when there's no information at the target, it's misleading. If you check my XfD log you'll find hundreds of redirects deleted for this exact season. Sure, improving the article would be great, but it'd make more sense for someone to not repeatedly create misleading redirects when there's no relevant information for a reader to gleam. WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation and discourage squatting on redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Plant🌱man (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, given that the college football season is still months away. It's also quite unlikely that a specific date and time for the 2025 Gasparilla Bowl has already been announced (if someone has seen a press release, feel free to add a link to it) as the first press release with bowl scheduling typically comes out in the summer. In my view, bowl game articles (or redirects) should not be created prior to the season even starting; mid-to-late October seems much more reasonable. Same would apply to any of the 40+ FBS bowl games that happen on an annual basis. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mm2wood

For context, this is a very niche MIDI cover of a song from Mega Man 2 that happens to be a running gag on the SiIvaGunner channel, hence the redirect's existence. However, it's not explained or even mentioned at the target article (and no reliable sources discuss it so I don't expect that to change), and it's not really a plausible search term. If people are searching for this at all, it's just as likely they're trying to get to the Mega Man 2 page IMO. The other redirects from related memes to the SG page have better rationales for keeping, but I think this one should go. HappyWith (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, though not as implausible or surprising. there's not much of a chance the fourth best host will be notable before... really, everything else surrounding him (kfad2, the ccc, sgfr, the gay mexican ass in my ass...). i don't think people looking for this would want mega man 2, though, since the midi has become as synonymous with siiva as 7 grand dad is with the game it's a bootleg of (hell, the literal only result i got from googling it that wasn't related to wood man in the context of siivagunner was akfamilyhome, who is a siiva memeber), and neither do i think people wouldn't search for this, since it is one of the biggest, most influential recurring jokes of the channel regardless of its notability. still, we have no info on this joke, so... consarn (nice) (>:]) 01:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    on that note, move to weak keep in the improbable case of wood man becoming a host during this discussion. of course, it'd require some heavy ccc progress, and at least 4 other hosts would take priority (give or take stingy before june), but a chance is a chance, and if it happens, i think people not that familiar with siiva would be a bit more likely to look for it consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 01:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was into Siivagunner when I made this redirect, and there's basically no reason for it to exist, especially considering not a single mention of mm2wood itself is actually in the article. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topologically nilpotent

There is an unrelated meaning at Nilpotent operator (and the current target does not even use this exact phrasing). (There is also the notion of topologically nilpotent element (Q104819584), but the closest we currently have on this seems to be the phrase a nilpotent infinitesimal is a variable tending to zero at Nilpotent#Algebraic nilpotents.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified at Nilpotent and Nilpotent operator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African under-17 basketball team redirects

The under-17 basketball teams are not mentioned in their target articles. See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 15#Gabon national under-16 and under-17 basketball team. Plant🌱man (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These teams never played any under-17 tournament. Maiō T. (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fabid families

Currently, this page redirects to "List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families"; however, the Nitrogen fixing clade only contains four of the orders within the entire clade known as "Fabids". I considered retargeting to Rosids#Phylogeny, however, that only lists orders within the Rosids clade (which includes Fabids) as a whole. As there is no comprehensive list of all families within the Fabids, I propose to delete to encourage creation of such a list (I certainly don't have enough time to make this list, though). Plant🌱man (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabids as currently defined includes the following orders:
Of which only the last 4 are included in the nitrogen-fixing clade. So, you can see why List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families is not a good target, as it excludes half of the orders placed within Fabids. Plant🌱man (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are easily converted into articles (including lists) without the need for deletion. You may not have time to create a full list, but you can add what's here now, and other editors can go into more detail in future. I might almost try to do so myself, but apart from my limited knowledge of botany, I'd like to hear from other editors before taking on such a task. P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius the thing is that I don’t have time atm to create list. I’m just asking for it to be deleted until I (or someone else) has the time to do it. As it stands, the current target is misleading. Plant🌱man (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there also doesn’t seem to be any appropriate target to redirect to, so until a list gets created this page should not exist. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital redirects

All of these redirects point to Intec Digital, a British record label; they are artists who have worked with said record label, and are mentioned in a list in the Intec Digital article. However, there is no additional information on these people in the article (beyond the fact that they have worked with this label). I propose deleting all the redirects because they leave the reader with very little information other than the fact that these people have worked with Intec Digital. I haven't looked into the notability of these people, but we should at least delete the ones that satisfy WP:GNG to encourage article creation. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These redirects were all created by now WMF-banned user:Zawl. On average, they also have mostly 1-10 pageviews in the last 30 days but most have 44 or more watchers, which seems quite strange to me. On a (kind of) unrelated note, the target Intec Digital seems to be written somewhat promotionally... Plant🌱man (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Poo

Seems to be a minor South Park character (though, I've never watched South Park) that isn't mentioned in the target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 25#Dog poop, where this redirect was brought up but ultimately nothing was done about it. My suggestion is to retarget to feces just like Dog poop. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Particle redirects

Seems overly specific and unnecessary; no need for the distinction. Created by User:Tiny Particle in light of a discussion about a similar redirect that was ultimately closed as delete. I suggest we do the same here. Plant🌱man (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as accurate and harmless and per my comments in the linked discussion the outcome of which was a mistake we should not repeat. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unrealistic search terms.★Trekker (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these WP:POINTy, recent creations as nonstandard disambiguations, and extremely unlikely search terms to boot. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT... I don't even know why I didn't think of that. You have articulated what I wanted to say perfectly. Plant🌱man (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a WP:POINT violation to create redirects that improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was pointed out that these would be bad examples to have in another discussion, and then these were subsequently made by that user; so yes, it's WP:POINTy. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not "pointed out", an opinion was expressed with which multiple people disagreed. Some people disliking these does not stop their existence improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precisely per Thryduulf. These are absolutely correct, and therefore cause no harm to the encyclopedia to keep. BD2412 T 00:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no basis to keep a redirect just because it's correct. It has to be plausibly useful too. A polyhedron with six faces, all of which are squares would correctly and unambiguously point to cube, but it would be utterly stupid to make, and would get rightly deleted. This is not how disambiguation works on Wikipedia, and we should not be letting people start their own types without some reaaaaaaaaaaaaally broad consensus to do so first. That is harmful to the encyclopedia. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with your argument is that these redirects are plausibly useful even if you personally don't like them (see WP:R#KEEP point 5). Redirects with useful but non-standard disambiguators are a benefit to the encyclopaedia because they allow people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "... because they allow people to find the content they are looking for ..." No! That's absolute and utter bullshit, and you know it. You accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT, but a) it's not that I don't like it, it's because I think it's unhelpful, and b) you're just as guilty of ILIKEIT in that case. My example redirect here would be completely pointless and unhelpful. There are precisely zero people that need these redirects to help find the target articles, and if you really believe otherwise, I have a good deal on a bridge to sell you. And frankly, your behavior in irrationally insisting otherwise is becoming disruptive to people trying to get some basic cleanup done, having to fight tooth and nail against this nonsense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to respond if you cannot remain civil. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They might not be civil, but I think their point is completely valid. If there was another Hillary Clinton or Melania Trump, then I would not be putting these redirects here. However, these redirects hold no value and are utterly useless because there is no distinction necessary. Nobody’s going to search for “Melania Trump (neé Knauss)” because there’s no other notable Melania Trump that people are going to search for on-wiki. And also as they said, a redirect that is factually correct but unnecessary (e.g. Pillbug (animal), Snail (mollusk), or Human (organism)) would probably be deleted because it’s redundant, superfluous and unnecessary - therefore unhelpful to the encyclopedia. May I ask who is going to search for “Hillary Clinton (née Rodham)” or “Melania Trump (née Knavs)”. If they knew that these people’s maiden names were Rodham and Knavs, they would also know which Hillary Clinton and which Melania Trump they are referring to, and would search for Hillary Clinton or Melania Trump (because really, who’s going to take the trouble to type out a parentheses, an e with an accent, and the maiden name IN ADDITION to the person’s full name, when they could just search up the person’s full name and be done with it?) Lastly, yes this is WP:POINT because User:Tiny Particle created these unnecessary redirects simply to prove their point of “there should be additional disambiguation even if it’s not needed or useful”, even though I specifically listed these as bad redirects due to their uselessness. I’m not going to contribute to this thread any further because I don’t want to get involved in an argument, but there’s my two cents. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your other arguments are predicated on redirects that are currently unnecessary being harmful in some way, but they aren't {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} exists and we have thousands of examples of such redirects. Not everybody who knows which topic they are looking for knows that that topic is currently the primary topic on Wikipedia, not everybody who knows Hillary Clinton's maiden name knows how many other notable people there are with the same name, not every topic that is primary today is always going to be the primary topic. Redirects with extra disambiguation make it more likely that links will continue to target the desired topic going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is obviously not useful to anyone; the accusation of WP:POINTyness seems perfectly correct. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is obviously not useful to anyone I've explained multiple times how this is useful, WP:REDIRECT#KEEP point 5 states If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained multiple times I agree that you have repeated yourself several times; I am skeptical of the value of that activity as a consensus-building activity. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone has explained, in detail, multiple times, with reference to relevant guidelines, why a redirect is useful I am skeptical that someone declaring it "obviously not useful to anyone" without reference to anything cares about consensus-building as much as they claim. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I really going to explain to a former arbitrator that a new entrant in a discussion stating that, among the arguments offered, some are more compelling that others, is a completely normal and appropriate thing, whereas a previous participant repeating the same argument every time someone disagrees with them is not? Maybe not today. --JBL (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a new entrant in a discussion stating that, among the arguments offered, some are more compelling that others, is a completely normal and appropriate thing, that is indeed a completely normal and appropriate thing. However that is not what has happened here. I shall refrain from explaining again what actually happened here because it seems that when someone doesn't listen once they don't listen a second time either. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Angels on a pinhead. Both redirects were reviewed without comment by User:SunloungerFrog; WP:redirects are cheap and redlinks on anypage are annoying to people who just want to get to the relevant page without faff. Tiny Particle (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I marked the redirects as reviewed procedurally, as it were, because they had been listed here - that is standard practice for NPP. Not because I considered that they were correct redirects. For what it's worth, I'd lean towards delete, because I think it's quite unlikely that anyone would use them to search for the articles in question. If readers did not know the subjects' married names, I'd've thought it more likely that they would look for Hillary Rodham and Melania Knavs instead. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The use-case here isn't someone who doesn't know the subject's married names, but someone who either doesn't know the married names are primary topics and/or wants to ensure that links continue to point to the subjects whether they are primary topic in the future or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    someone who ... doesn't know the married names are primary topics - for these two cases, seems to me as though such persons would be few and far between, if they exist at all. Point taken about future proofing, but where does that end? As a reductio ad absurdum, one might then argue that we should create the redirect Hillary Clinton (neé Rodham, spouse of Bill Clinton, former US president) or some such, just in case a future notable Hillary Rodham married a future Bill Clinton, operatic tenor. In any case, I don't especially mind whether the redirects are kept or not, so will leave off here. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

More than one "Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine" since 2017. Has been used in 2020 and 2024 A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't going to a specific yearly season anymore, it was retargeted to the generalized non-numbered season article. It originally went to 2024 before being retargeted to Hurricane Helene before the lack of a year disambiguator brought it to its current page. Departure– (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against girls

Shouldn't this redirect be retargeted to Violence against women, which is defined as including both adult women and girls? fgnievinski (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the section titled "Violence against girls" seems to be quite adequate, fwiw. I have added a {{see also}} linking to Violence against women in that section. Plant🌱man (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cindyana Santangelo

The subject's page redirects to an album where the subject speaks only one word. Does not pass WP:GNG WWGB (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notability does not apply to redirects, only to the question of whether a subject should have a standalone article. In fact, redirects from notable subjects are sometimes deleted precisely because they're notable. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Most of her obituaries mention her acting roles instead of Jane's Addiction, so I think this could be a little WP:ASTONISH, but those acting roles were very minor and don't really merit being mentioned on here, so given that this is probably the only target the redirect is fine. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (with soft redirect) to Wikidata Cindyana Santangelo (Q133734495) as it's non-notable for Wikipedia. fgnievinski (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly support this retarget, given the rules on redirect notability criteria (none). Ref (chew)(do) 07:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this option. Redirects that include a Wikidata property number are frequently deleted on Wikipedia (example: "Foo (Q123456)" to "Foo"), and doing this is such an unlikely cross-project redirect that it is definitely not what readers are looking for if they are currently on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Congo

Pointless redirect, no reliable sources indicating "citizenship". Absolutiva (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. We have similar articles for other countries discussing citizenship specifically; e.g. British nationality law, Citizenship of the United States. A similar article could likely be created regarding the DRC. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_29
No tags for this post.