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 23:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Toward the South of California → Baja California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No one calls the state as such (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this was the result of a malicious page move Dawnseeker2000 01:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Leftover from a 2015 page move that was reversed after 2 minutes. Got 4 hits in all of 2024. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Extremely implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G3, redirect created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what? --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Southern California. I don't think this phrase is actually that ambiguous or implausible - it clearly relates to both California and the cardinal direction of south. Plus Google search results are all about the Southern California region, even though there aren't a lot. Duckmather (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while the phrase isn't implausible ("Where's Baja California? Towards the south of California.") I think it's very implausible as a search term. Anyone looking for this can and most likely will just type in "South of California". Rusalkii (talk) 03:16, 27 February 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 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Siam Nakhon province → Siammarat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Siam Nakhon Province → Siammarat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Having searched high and low, I could find no evidence of "Siam Nakhon" or สยามนคร ever having been an actual name of the province anywhere. The article was renamed from Siamriap Province to Siam Nakhon Province following an IP editor's addition of that name to the article way back in 2006, and remained there until yesterday when I renamed it away from the unverifiable name, which may well be a hoax. Practically all hits I'm finding for the term quite clearly copied the name from Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also since redirected Siammarat to Inner Cambodia where the topic is more extensively covered. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 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 Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). [I missed the mention at the target.] — Anonymous 12:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Updog → Cobra pose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Anyone searching this is much more likely looking for the joke "what's updog" than the upward dog yoga pose. — Anonymous 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In yoga we commonly say "Upward Dog" for Urdhva Mukha Shvanasana, Upward-Facing Dog, and this is not uncommonly abbreviated to "Updog". "Updog" serves as the counterpart, and matching name, to the commonly-used "Downdog" or "Downward-facing Dog". There is no ambiguity here as there is no article on that joke. I learn that there is even an "Updog Yoga Studio" from the familiar pose (with a familiar name). Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Currently, the only mention of the term on Wikipedia is the yoga meaning, so the redirect has to go there. The best we can do for the joke meaning is a hatnote pointing at the Wikitionary entry, per WP:ELMAYBE and WP:IAR. I'm not married to that idea though. Paradoctor (talk) 21:00, 23 February 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 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalist Europe → Western Bloc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

General term, used for capitalism in Europe more broadly than just during the Cold War. Rusalkii (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I really expected that we'd have a potential alternative target, but it seems we don't. There appear to be only two geography-based capitalism redirects: Capitalism in China (Socialist market economy) and Capitalism in Pakistan (Privatisation in Pakistan), neither of which seem to function as potential models for this one (they're arguably rather problematic in themselves). Delete unless someone else can find a valid target. — Anonymous 20:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in more of Cold War terms. However, if you think it's redundant and shall be deleted then I'm fine with that decision. Rager7 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 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. asilvering (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Broque Monsieur → Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick Google search shows that Broque Monsieur is a character from Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. Although the redirect would be more helpful if the target mentioned Broque Monsieur, it's still more helpful than a red link. That's why "not mentioned at the target" is not a WP:RFD#DELETE criterion. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StainedGlassCavern: If someone looks up a specific character name, and that character is not even mentioned in the article they are sent to, they are going to be quite disappointed and probably pretty confused. As a reader, I would personally rather have a redlink than a redirect that pretends that there is useful info there when there isn't. Also, precedent is to delete these. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's confusing and disappointing to follow a redirect to find no mention of the searched term. However, a redlink would then encourage someone to either 1) recreate this redirect, or worse, 2) write an article about this clearly non-notable subject. (See WP:RETURNTORED). Perhaps there is a way to add a mention of Broque Monsieur on this article without creating an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Ideas for how to do so would be welcome at Talk:Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story or WT:WikiProject Video games. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "someone might recreate it" is a convincing reason to keep this redirect. It is pretty unlikely, and if it does become a problem, that is what salting is for. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as an ultimately not very notable character. i like broque myself (if only because of broggy), but even i can't argue that he's as popular as fawful, popple, significantly edgier bowser, or the shroobs. also he's a side character that no one wants to bang, which pretty much guts his notability consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As non-notable character not mentioned at target. Redirect is misleading to anybody who searches for the term and finds nothing there. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 3 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).

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, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nelson Institute of Marine Research → Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

One of the characters in the film is named Nelson, but no such institute is mentioned in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The mention was in USOS Seaview, which was redirected at AfD. Delete as excessive fancruft. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 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 and discuss at AfD. Jay 💬 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yusuke Nakano → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. IceWelder [✉] 16:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is another article relating to another "Yusuke Nakano". Also, after quickly searching, the Yusuke Nakano mentioned here is known for his work at Nintendo. Could I suggest making a disambiguation page? / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and further discuss at AfD if desired. Former article with significant history. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to AfD - no need for a dab if the animator isn't notable. If he is, (imo) better to have a stub on him with a hatnote than a redirect+dab mess. -- asilvering (talk) 21:33, 3 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).

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, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooper Cap → Cooper Kupp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Mistaking Cap for Kupp seems like an unlikely misspelling to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Additionally, the page views won't even show on the stats page. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RemoveRedSky. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and also google hits being entirely for physical caps, not the target. Rusalkii (talk) 03:26, 27 February 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 speedy delete. Based on the original creator stating it was accidently created. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Benjamin F. Montoya" → Benjamin F. Montoya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same as below, no need for quotes. Yes it's from a page move but there are no incoming links from articles. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary redirect left over from page move. – Maliepa (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G7 per Maliepa above, and G6, obvious error. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 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. Jay 💬 13:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Algorithmic dystopia" → Digital dystopia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same reason as below, no need to have the title in quotes. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP Does not satify WP:UNNATURAL. It satifies WP:R#KEEP. It is a synonym of digital dystopia: "Algorithmic+dystopia" Geysirhead (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, yes, quotes are unreasonable. Geysirhead (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnatural, this isn't a quote or similar where one might naturally search with quotation marks. Rusalkii (talk) 03:27, 27 February 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. Jay 💬 13:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alex Austin" → Salt and Pepper (film)#Novelization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:UNNATURAL, also inconsistent with Alex Austin. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL and noting Alex Austin exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnatural, this isn't a quote or similar where one might naturally search with quotation marks. Rusalkii (talk) 03:27, 27 February 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 Bold dabify. This is a unilateral editorial action that nullifies the object of this RfD, as deleting a dab requires an AfD. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 18:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump peace plan → 2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Trump Peace Plan → 2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Donald Trump peace plan → 2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Trump peace initiative → 2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Deletion discussion also applies to Trump Peace Plan and Donald Trump peace plan)

The "peace plans" proposed by Trump I can think of off top of the head may refer to: the redirect, the current war in Gaza, and the war in Ukraine. It's not immediately obvious which one is the primary topic, especially considering WP:NOTNEWS in mind. I think it's probably best to delete these redirects, or failing that have these as disambiguation pages. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, those were left behind from a RM I closed that was moved for a similar reason. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added the aforementioned redirects, and I boldly included Trump peace initiative. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If anything, the primary topic seems to be the war in Ukraine, but neither make a great target. I suppose it could be disambiguated, but I don't think this is a term used often enough for that to make much sense. Rusalkii (talk) 03:16, 25 February 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 23:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sour apple → Granny Smith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Sour Apple → Granny Smith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous descriptive phrase not even mentioned at target. Numerous sour apple cultivars exist.[1] Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems like List of sour apple cultivators would be a viable standalone list, if anyone ever decided to make it. Given its current nonexistence, I'm leaning delete for the redirect until such a list is created per REDYES. — Anonymous 19:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous, agreed, but I think you mean List of sour apple cultivars (cultivars as in cultivated plant varieties), not cultivators (people or companies who grow plants). Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving my knowledge of horticultural terms. — Anonymous 17:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; "sour apple" is not just a fruit, it's a flavoring for a wide variety of candies and liqueurs, most of which have no documented connection to the Granny Smith apple, although the color green is commonly used for marketing and labels often display green apples. The problem is finding documentation in WP:RELIABLE sources; this story suggests no actual connection to the Granny Smith, and it also documents previous names and themes used to market the flavoring. I favor WP:REDYES. Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carguychris. I think the primary usage of "sour apple" is an artificial flavor, with particularly sour apple cultivars being secondary to the artificial flavor. We have an article for blue raspberry flavor. There could be an article for sour apple flavor, or a disambiguation page if their is an article for the flavor and a list of sour cultivars. But absent an article or list, delete this redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Sour Apple redirect that should be added to this nomination. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sour apple is an extremely popular and common flavor (usually made with malic acid, ethyl butyrate, etc., that convey the fruity and tart characteristics, rather than from real apples). We should have an article on this concept alone. BD2412 T 21:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But we have not. What good is a bridge when there is no road? Paradoctor (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How long would it take to write that article? Half an hour? BD2412 T 01:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Go head. I'll time you. Paradoctor (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had other priorities, and only just saw this, but Draft:Sour apple is underway. BD2412 T 20:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, no fair! I didn't get to say "ready, set, go"! Paradoctor (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Sour Apple with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED and hope Draft:Sour apple gets moved to mainspace, looks like a good start. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty close, but needs subject matter expertise. I would agree with deleting the redirect at this point. The article will come along before long. BD2412 T 18:31, 24 February 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. asilvering (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glass-ceiling feminism → Liberal feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Glass-ceiling feminist → Liberal feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Glass-ceiling feminists → Liberal feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These terms are not mentioned in the article. From looking at my search results, this term was first coined by Angela Davis, and there is an interesting quote at Wikiquote. Either delete them (unless a mention of the term is added to some Davis-related article) or soft redirect to Wikiquote. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsuke1998AEOS, have you read WP:RFD#DELETE about the limited circumstances under which a term that is "not mentioned" should be deleted? It needs to be "novel or very obscure". This one is neither novel nor very obscure. No reader is going to be shocked to click a link to that and end up in that article. Therefore we should keep it.

If you would like, you can add {{R to article without mention}} to the first one. Alternatively, you could edit the target article and add a mention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Yes, I have read it countless times every time I go make a nomination. My issue is not that "glass-ceiling feminism" is not mentioned in the article, but that it is conceptually distinct from liberal feminism (I would argue it is closer to the topic of white feminism), therefore it is not currently useful. Because the situation here is not clear, a nomination would be better to determine the outcome (whether the redirect should point to some other article, or be deleted). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-emptiness-of-international-womens-day/ says that glass-ceiling feminism is related to intersectional feminism, which redirects to Intersectionality. The lead of the current target says that "liberal feminism has taken a turn toward an intersectional understanding", so the current target isn't entirely bad (assuming that one source isn't wrong).

Could we do better? Glass ceiling is an obvious alternative. White feminism is possible, though it implies that the problem doesn't really exist in countries with different racial/ethnic hierarchies (e.g., in Japan, where people with non-Japanese ancestry are discriminated against, or in much of Europe if you are one of the disadvantaged white ethnic groups, such as Sami or Roma). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Glass ceiling is seemingly an obvious target, though I'm not sure whether that opinion piece would constitute due weight in the article. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of {{R without mention}} is to throw the redirect into a maintenance category which gets evaluated to determine if the redirect should exist or not ... in other words, to determine if the redirect should be nominated for RfD, which this discussion is. Ending an RfD discussion to tagging the redirect with {{R without mention}} is taking a step backwards since it's kicking the can down a road that eventually leads to an RfD anyways; we are already there. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no mention of these terms in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I disagree with WhatamIdoing and the guidelines WhatamIdoing cite, and think not being mentioned should be by itself a reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No mention anywhere = no available target = not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not mentioned at the target, making it a misleading/confusing redirect for anybody who searches the term. WP:RDELETE is not an extensive list of the only reasons to delete a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 3 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).

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 14:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• India national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → India men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Malaysia national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Malaysia men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Syria national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Syria men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Uzbekistan national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Uzbekistan men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Qatar national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Qatar men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Nepal national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Nepal men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Madagascar national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Madagascar men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• North Korea national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → North Korea men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Mozambique national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Mozambique men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Rwanda national under-16 and under-17 basketball team → Rwanda men's national under-16 basketball team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete all: Wikipedia:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed at these targets. Maiō T. (talk) 11:06, 23 February 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. asilvering (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• English WikipediA → English Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL capitalisation; implausible redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per {{R from camelcase}}. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a plausible search term, and if it was the search results would help a user find the right page. {{R from camelcase}} is for legacy page names.

I note that the creator of this redirect also created Ddox as a redirect, suggesting a deficient understanding (at best) of the purpose of redirects. Oblivy (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy, on that note, having looked through their contributions, I see that they have made many other confusing, often downright bizarre, redirects. Looking at Wikipedia:‑( makes me seriously question their level of competence. — Anonymous 03:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment camelcasE sayS nothinG abouT makinG thE lasT letteR captiaL, buT aS yoU caN seE thiS iS A verY normaL waY oF typinG sO thiS redirecT shoulD defientilY bE kepT^{[just kidding]} Anthony2106 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but someone should nominate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikipediA&oldid=208363752

Used on that uses page, they probably just copyed wikipediA Anthony2106 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeletE peR noM. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8139:4F47:7D35:2A9F (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, less per the nitty gritty of wp:camel, but per the styling of wikipedia's logo. then again, this redirect isn't exactly old, hence the vote being weak consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consarn - wikipedia's logo has the last letter larger than the rest, it's not implausible. WikipediA exists as a {{R from stylization}}. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's logo may be stylised as "WikipediaA", but it is never stylised as "English WikipediA"... 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? But the logo doesn't contain a doubled A at the end...? Why would WikipediaA be okay at all? Fieari (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly just a typo in the comment. Mclay1 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CAMEL. Early in Wikipedia's history, two capital letters were required in every title, and while people were arbitrary as to where to put the capital letters for a while, it became a standard to do the first and last letter for some reason. Thankfully, this titling requirement was eventually lifted, but it's standard practice to keep all the old stupid CamelcasE links for historical reasons. Not to mention that, yes, the Wikipedia logo does have a larger "A" at the end, which could lead someone to plausibly type it even today. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: Sorry, I just assumed this was old because of the formatting. It is a new redirect, so my reasoning is only per the logo styling now. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add {{R from stylization}}. LarryL33k (Contribz) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BugGhost and LarryL33k. This stylisation business was once included in the lead paragraph, but was deemed to be not accurate due to all of the letters being in caps. However, to me this is still an indication that some people do perceive it this way. Havradim leaf a message 03:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do people searching Wikipedia seriously not know what Wikipedia is called? Sorry, this is just silly and pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously there are people who go on this website who don't know much about it yet. People aren't born knowing about this website, and there are people who don't speak English. If you go onto the main page for the first time and see a logo that says "WikipediA" it's not a large leap to think the website is called WikipediA. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a fake {{R from CamelCase}} because there are 3 caps not 2. Created in 2025, incoming links couldn't be a problem. The correct capitalization is taught to everyone by the Main page saying "Welcome to Wikipedia,". Most importantly, typing French WikipediA in the search box already loads the correct page despite being a redlink. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the other deleters. This isn't a real camel case redirect, and no one is helped by this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Created a month ago, making it almost two decades too late to be considered a valid {{R from CamelCase}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Implausible redirect. Entering alternative casing into the search box will automatically go to the correct page anyway. I can't see any situation where this would be useful as a link. Mclay1 (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Surprised by the amount of late !delete votes talking about this not being a CamelCase redirect. That's not the argument to keep it, the argument is that it's a stylization. Count me in as a keep, given there were 26 views between the redirect's creation and nomination, of which 12 were at least 2 days after its creation. I think that shows enough use for this to be kept as plausible, though I would've preferred a larger timeframe undisturbed by creation or nomination for deletion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 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).