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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Trump 2028 presidential campaignDonald Trump 2028 presidential campaign → 2028 United States presidential election#Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Kind of feels misleading, Trump is not running so no reason for redirect from a title that seems like an actual campaign Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Misleading and unnecessary. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Keep: Changing !vote per below comments by pbp, Thryduulf, and Yeshivish613. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @A. Randomdude0000: have you FOLLOWED the redirect? Have you read that article? _pbp 21:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*::::Yes, I have, and did so before making the above comments. For the time being anyway, my !vote still stands. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's no actual deletion rationale that pertains to redirects in the nomination. This isn't article space. Any plausible or semi-plausible search term, even if inaccurate, is entitled a redirect. Donald Trump has speculated about running, other people have speculated about him running, and that speculation has received significant coverage.

Furthermore, lets talk about what this article redirects to. It redirects to an article that a) says that Trump can't run for president under the Constitution, but b) that there are efforts to make him eligible, and c) he and others have speculated about him running, while d) backing up all three with reliable sources. _pbp 20:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL, redirects can't be created based on speculation alone. We don't even know if he's running a presidential campaign, for that matter. If he actually starts a campaign (which is unlikely) then we can re-create it. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rediects CAN be created on speculation. They aren't held to the standards articles are _pbp 20:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless, it is pretty misleading and doesn't help a reader who is searching for a 2028 presidential campaign centred around Trump. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's really no sense in having a redirect about a presidential campaign that may or may not happen, two or three years before it would normally get announced. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plantman: have you FOLLOWED the redirect? Have you read that article? _pbp 21:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I have. I still think it's too soon for this redirect. But, you are free to disagree with me. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep while the current target exists due to the simple fact that we have something. Otherwise, I'd be agreeing with the "delete"-ers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pbp. This is a highly plausible search term that leads to directly relevant content and there is no alternative target which would better match the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Plantman. Enix150 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pbp. Definitely a plausible search term given President Trump's own self-declared interest in running again. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no 2028 Trump campaign. The current target is about speculation he might run. That seems very misleading to me. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As with the other deletes, I think you're thinking too much as if this was an article. This is a redirect and the principal question to be asked is, "Would people search for this?" It is enough of a news item that they clearly would. I'm also not entirely sure we can even say "there is no campaign" given the level of pontification by everyone about a campaign. _pbp 16:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: If a person isn't running or can't run, there is ZERO HARM AT ALL to linking to a page that explains that they aren't or can't run. And benefit if a potential run is speculated about in the media. _pbp 19:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of people are wondering about Trump running in 2028, and this is the section which discusses the possibility. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the keepers. Jay 💬 15:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too soon - there is no such thing and this should remain red until he actively starts campaigning for a third term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 11 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 retarget to MoMA PS1. (non-admin closure) Plant🌱man (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Museum Of Modern Art, QueensMuseum Of Modern Art, Queens → Museum of Modern Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely redirect. MoMA is not located in Queens, and Queens does not touch Manhattan. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to MoMA PS1, which is a branch of the museum located in Queens. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Presidentman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

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 💬 15:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Electronic bicycle (Philippines) → Golf cart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• E-Bike (Philippines) → Golf cart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• E-bike (Philippines) → Golf cart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• EBike (Philippines) → Golf cart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, unlikely search terms with disambiguators as such, suggest deleting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, e-bikes aren't the same as golf carts, and I've never even heard of an "electronic bicycle" - the proper term to use in this case is "electric bicycle". But there's also no mention of the Philippines at Electric bicycle. I don't know, maybe "e-bike" is slang for "golf cart" in the Philippines (@BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus, care to comment?) but then again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary meant to document every slang term in every country. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While "Electronic bike" is an incorrect term for "e-bike" it is a highly plausible error (it does mean "electronic" in many, maybe most, "e-" terms) and also very common, especially on shopping sites. As for the target, google suggests that the term "e-bike" in the Philippines includes 2, 3 and 4-wheeled vehicles including some that (in British English at least) would absolutely be called a golf cart but also ones that I would describe as a scooter, mobility scooter or bicycle and electric motorized tricycle (Philippines). Golf cart-type things do seem to be the heaviest vehicles encompassed by the term so it isn't synonymous with electric vehicle either (that article is almost exclusively focused on vehicles heavier than golf carts, despite the term explicitly encompassing more). As far as I've found we don't have a good target for this, with aspects covered by Golf cart, Cycling in the Philippines, motorized tricycle (Philippines), Electric rickshaw, Auto rickshaw#Philippines, Cycle rickshaw and possibly others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and the fact that "Philippines" seems to me mentioned in neither the current target or Electric bicycle (the two articles mentioned this far where these redirects could be the most associated). Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 9 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 23:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Transmogrification Potion → Neopets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete apparently a Neopets potion but as Pppery said, not mentioned at the target. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: potential precedent for deletion. Noting many targets to the Neopets#Metaverse without mention in the article. I think most are from a list that was dropped along the way (many bot-retargeted). Tule-hog (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To my surprise Neopets is the primary topic for this term (I expected it to be highly ambiguous), but it isn't exclusive to it (I can also find hits about Ultima Online for example). There are no mentions of the term anywhere on WIkipedia though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; I have also nominated another batch at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 3. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: the redirects are listed at thread #Petpetpet and a couple of threads directly below it. Posting so that y'all don't have to scroll to look for it :) Plant🌱man (talk) 05:39, 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 restore. No prejudice against AfD or merging. Jay 💬 16:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Images and TourImages and Tour → Dream Theater  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Article that has since been redirected since October 2020 fails both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. A single source with tour dates and an unsourced set list does not deem the article as notable. Definitely a delete in my opinion. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was formerly an article on which HorrorLover555 had placed a PROD tag, until it was BLAR'd by GB fan on October 8, 2020. Plant🌱man (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NTOUR, if a concert tour is not notable, it should be covered in a section of the section of the artist's page. However, there is currently no mention of this tour on the band's article. Seeing as I'm not a music expert, someone else should add this tour to the band's page and then refine it to that section. If that can't be done, then the redirect should be deleted. Plant🌱man (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Plant🌱man (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect with {{R with history}}, and notified of this discussion at the target and BLARer pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article without prejudice to AfD or merge. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1923 → Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The ship is not from 1923. (This redirect was originally blanked by another user, but I decided to take it to RfD instead) ApexParagon (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This list of French naval weapons confirms they are not the same weapon. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unusual year usage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BMW iVentures → BMW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of this on the target page. Happy to change my vote if someone can find a better target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tungabhadra FCTungabhadra FC → Andhra Pradesh Football Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no mention of this club in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:28, 8 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ree Tardy Oswald → Thomas Matthew Crooks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems to be a parody name for Thomas used on social media, but since there is no mention on the target page, it would be surprising for readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being unmentioned (and possibly speedy delete for WP:G10 due to it being based upon the r-slur). _{Where's that vaccum cleaner seller when you need him the most?} User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We are an encyclopedia, not a glossary of slang terms. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:13, 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).

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 Google Search AI Overviews. I'll leave any necessary/suggested page moves and/or discussions to other editors as this discussion is to establish where this redirect should target, and that has been accomplished. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AI Overviews → Google Search#AI Overviews  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Google Search AI Overviews. The reason I'm putting this on RFD and not just retargeting it is because said article requires a little bit of clean up first. If retarget, we should create AI overview as a redirect to the same page. Justjourney (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I've added the maintenance templates myself. Justjourney (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is right now. At the moment, the article Google Search AI Overviews has a lot of issues, as you said. One of things I'd like to point out is that the Criticism section in the article is much less detailed than the current target section is on the subject of criticism. Also, a lot of the claims in the article are unsourced and has a bit of WP:PROMO in the lead. If someone improves the article such that these issues are addressed, then it would be better to redirect it to the article. As it stands right now, a person can still get to Google Search AI Overviews from the redirect, because the section links to the article. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For re-assessment since the proposed target has undergone more cleanup since the last comment in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close Since a standalone article has been created, Google Search AI Overviews should just be moved to AI Overviews. The feature is called "AI Overviews", not "Google Search AI Overviews", so the article is titled incorrectly. If necessary, I can invoke G7. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:12, 3 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 keep. Jay 💬 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Full court pressFull court press → Full-court press  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was recently nominated for G6 speedy deletion to move Full Court Press (disambiguation). Given that the list items at the DAB page (as well as current DAB title) are capitalized, I feel this could be a case of WP:DIFFPUNCT. However, I thought it would make sense to discuss here to come to consensus on the matter. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Soulbust. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, funny enough I was writing a message on your talk page as you pinged me. I'll copy+paste what I said there over here: I don't think the capitalization matters here. If I, or another user, typed in full court press, Full Court Press, or Full court press, it is obviously ambiguous in any case. The F C and P being capital can refer to one of two things currently with an article, but that dab page should still list the basketball tactic. The full court press or Full court press can still refer to the album or TV series, just typed out by a user in a different way. Why shouldn't the (disambiguation) be dropped, in this case? I think how I feel about it is clear, but definitely would appreciate a discussion to reach consensus. Soulbust (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The basketball tactic is clearly primary, and it's not unreasonable for someone to spell it unhyphenated. Meanwhile, the other uses at the dab page are all capitalized, and so it makes sense to keep the dab page at the capitalized title there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To elaborate a little, I think the omission of the hyphen is a much more forgivable error than the lower-casing of a proper noun. Couple that with the primacy of the basketball tactic, and I think that adds up to a keep...there's already a hat note there to the dab page. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very reasonable, I sometimes miss hyphens when I type. Harmless to the encyclopedia. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Found some matches online for the non-hyphenated term:

• https://www.rockstaracademy.com/blog/full-court-press-basketball
• https://www.gatorcountry.com/florida-gators-basketball/the-full-court-press-giving-the-gators-a-new-tool/

It might not be the most frequent search term, but it exists. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s far more likely for someone to miss a hyphen while searching for the basketball term than for them to not capitalise when searching for the other terms. Plant🌱man (talk) 00:17, 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).

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One Piece (upcoming TV series) → One Piece (2023 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:UFILM be darned regarding page views, the target came out almost 2 years ago. It's time to get rid of this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Over 100 hits most months, very rare to have a day without any views. It is absolutely not time to get rid of this yet. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. In all likelihood, the visits come from people who are misled expecting to find another, different and newer TV series, certainly not the old one. Per WP:UFILM the title is no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers, and two years is more than enough time to get rid of it. Burn it with fire. Cavarrone 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misleading. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Kasethan Kadavulada (upcoming film). Plant🌱man (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plantman: We've been at this for years. The discussion to establish some sort of policy for these redirects started here: Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Archive 84#Formerly untitled/upcoming media ... and we've had at least 1-2 discussions since, including one that resulted in the current wording of the target of WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943 my bad, I didn’t see the link you had put in the nomination. Either way, my stance on this isn’t going to change. Could have worded this a little bit better Plant🌱man (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think it was gonna change, I just wanted to provide you some background of how long this controversy has been going on for (actually, for years prior to the linked discussion that I provided, but that was an instance when a detailed discussion occurred.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943 Yeah, I know. I am surprised that it’s been going on for THAT long tho, not gonna lie. Well, thanks for the heads up anyways - I’ll keep it in mind for future RFD’s like this. Plant🌱man (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Really, page views are all that matters here. And considering, as @Thryduulf said, this averages over 100 hits most months... User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 14:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re probably from people seeing this redirect in the search results, expecting an upcoming film, and then getting a film that already exists. See also WP:UFILM. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:28, 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).