February 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2025.

Champaign-Urbana Mass Transist District

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. Complex/Rational 03:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that this redirect should be deleted, as it is an uncommon misspelling of the subject's name. A Google search for the misspelled name returns no results. DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 23:20, 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).

Orabueze

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Orabueze

Beautiful, big-titty, butt-naked women just don't fall out the sky, you know

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 06:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in the article is "Beautiful, naked, big-titty womеn just don't fall out the sky, you know". I don't think random variations make sense to keep. Rusalkii (talk) 21:28, 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).

Ajit Kumar Banerjee (writer)

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 06:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is misleading because Ajit Kumar Banerjee is a fictional character, not a writer, and not to be confused with Ajit Kumar Banerjee who isn't a writer either. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:28, 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).

Sonic movie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Sonic movie

Cotton ribbon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Cotton ribbon

Ribbon, typewriter

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 06:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weird way to work a disambiguator, i'll say, and not even the first time this happens (see here). created by a super duper blocked sockpuppeteer and likely better fit for ink ribbon now, but that's besides the point consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:13, 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).

Draft:Utah Something

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 Deleted. G7 by Rsjaffe (non-admin closure) — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 02:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder name no longer needed, hopelessly ambiguously. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 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).

Ayno Maina (A Town)

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 06:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely disambiguation. Was at this title for less than a day. Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – just a rename from a title that need not be kept — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 22:14, 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).

Round Six

 :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.

Sorry, I completely missed the previous RfD. The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Rusalkii (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was a working title of the Netflix series. We already have Round Six (TV series), which seems appropriate, but there are lots of other round sixes onwiki (2009_Currie_Cup_Premier_Division#Round_Six is a randomly chosen example), and a quick search shows that the TC series doesn't seem to be the primary topic for this title. Rusalkii (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The show is named "Round Six" in at least two different national markets, so it's a valid name. And while there are other things that could be seen as "round six" s, these are not titles but part of those events, so a disambiguation factor is not part of the issue yet. — Masem (t) 19:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem. There is zero expectation of finding the sixth round of the 2009 Currie Cup Premier Division with a simple search of "Round Six", so that example is laughably silly. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 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).

Controversial autism therapy

A cursory search indicates that ABA is one of multiple "treatments" for autism, all of which appear controversial to an extent, with this particular one apparently attracting more controversy due to being the most popular. Therefore, I think this redirect is ambiguous (and even if it weren't, probably not a likely enough search term to justify a clearly non-neutral redirect). — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it's just this one, as it is controversial in the autistic community and it's not just because it's the most popular, its because of the mental health outcomes of autistic people who have had ABA and because it encourages normalization (all of witch is mentioned on the page). There arnt any other ones that I know of that are as bad as this one. Anthony2106 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask WP:AUTISM to come vote on my side or is that against the rules? Anthony2106 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
too late, i already did that consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony2106, look up "bleach therapy" and "chelation therapy". They certainly appear much more controversial (and probably much less effective) than this. Also note that telling people to come vote on your side in any discussion is called canvassing and against WP rules. — Anonymous 13:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay these two you pointed out seem worse, maybe it should be changed, maybe re-targeted, couldn't be a disambiguation page could it? I've already made 8 bad redirects I don't wanna add to the list. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually make DAB pages for vague descriptive terms. Also, it seems we only have an article for this one. — Anonymous 14:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support anyone developing a Wikipedia article on this topic, but opinionated disambiguation pages for topics where there are multiple perspectives are beyond what editors can manage. I support anyone criticizing this therapy. It seems developed in the 1960s, so I am sure like most psychological therapies it has been challenged. Wikipedia is not effective for setting SEO for disambiguation pages, so if the intent is to find readers seeking this term, then keeping this page will not achieve that anyway. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ABA is still controversial, enough said. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LarryL33k the problem the nom proposed is that it's not the only controversial flavor of "autism treatment" (whatever autism is) consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but Most people who search up "Controversial Autism Treatment" would most likely be looking for ABA, anyway. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LarryL33k, is there any way to prove this? If anyone ever actually searches it, we have no way of confirming which of the multiple "controversial autism therapies" they are looking for. — Anonymous 02:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me what is "whatever autism is"? There is an autistic person right here! Anthony2106 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Consarn I forgot to @ you Anthony2106 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthony2106 the reason a good handful of "autism treatments" are seen as controversial can be attributed to them being based on misunderstandings of what autism is or isn't, and whether or not it's something worth "treating" or "fixing". case in point, i've been autistic all along! maybe! the diagnosis was done at birth and was torn between autism and a really shitty respiratory system so i can't actually be 100% sure until i have that checked again but shush
    that aside aside, this is why my vote will be to delete, since it wouldn't be a fitting topic for a redirect or dab. if the concept can be expanded into an article about controversial treatments, i'd really recommend playing it safe and working with a draft until it's at least c-class consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh cool you might also be autistic though I don't know how a bad respiratory system and autism can overlap, anyway good luck with an adult assesment especially if your a girl they might be sexist. The YouTuber I'm Autistic Now What? made some knowledge that might help:[1] Anthony2106 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't redirect descriptions of things to the thing itself. Google is there, as is the Wikipedia search engine. No need for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Autism therapies. While orange tagged, it does go over criticisms of various techniques, including ABA. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target Autism therapies has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google suggests that ABA is by far the main topic for "controversial autism therapy". On the first page of hits I get only one for something else (Facilitated communication [2]). That being said, this is vague enough that I think retarget per Patar knight is the best option here, I think someone searching for this will be best served by an overview article without us being opinionated about whether ABA is THE controversial autism therapy or just A controversial autism therapy, though I have somewhat mixed feelings on this given how predominate ABA is in the search results. Rusalkii (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the current target is misleading (this is not the only controversial or discredited therapy), a DAB page doesn't make sense, and there's no perfect alternative target. As a second choice, we could retarget to Autism therapies, as suggested by Patar knight above, but this article includes non-controversial ones as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing unrelated to the discussion, but it seems that in the process of voting, you accidentally duplicated the section lmao consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Supermarket

There's a chain of pet stores in the United States called "Pet Supermarket", which I'm wagering is an entirely different organization than the (former?) UK chain that this redirects to the purchasers of. This link should either be disambiguated or redlinked with Pet Supermarket (UK) linking to MedicAnimal. The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: Am I understanding you correctly in assuming one of the options you are proposing is that the nominated redirect be deleted and then Pet Supermarket (UK) be created? If so, that causes essentially a WP:PRECISE issue since the disambiguated version of the title "Pet Supermarket" would exist but the non-disambiguated version would not, which would almost be guaranteed to result in this nominated redirect being recreated anyways Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:---

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Template:---

Cyber cold war

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. Complex/Rational 03:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "cold war" at the target. Apart from deletion, Second Cold War could maybe be a potential target, though there is not a lot of content on "cyber" things there either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cyber espionage is only a little better than Second Cold War. Not the best but think that "Cyber cold war" is still a viable search term that should lead somewhere. --Pmedema (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(It should only lead somewhere if we have sufficient coverage to provide the reader with.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:52, 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).

I only hope that we don't lose sight of one thing - that it all started with a mouse.

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 14:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine quote from Disney, but it is not mentioned or explained in the target article, either now or when the redirect was created last year. Belbury (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom/lack of mention in the target article. 19:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
  • Keep because "not mentioned" is not actually a reason for deleting redirects per WP:RFD#DELETE (only if the redirect is a "novel or very obscure synonym", and this is not novel, nor obscure, nor even a synonym. It's possible that this should be mentioned in the article, but that's solved with the [Edit] button, not with the delete one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too obscure for any possible benefit (and no, trivial nonsense like this shouldn't go in the article): if it redirects anywhere, there is a tentative argument towards the Disney corporation (which did start with the mouse), but Walt did not. - SchroCat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmentioned in the target, leaving readers with no information about the subject of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 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).

Juvéderm

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned at Actavis, as well as some more specific articles like Non-surgical rhinoplasty or Lip augmentation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure". {{R from brand name}} is a perfectly appropriate situation in which a brand name is not mentioned in an article. Therefore, keep.
Please think carefully about this: If we add the brand names for cosmetic treatments, someone's going to come screaming WP:PROMOTIONAL. We used to have a whole article there, but it was redirected to the generic product. Since we didn't add spammy stuff to the main article, then you complain that it's "not mentioned". This kind of Catch-22 (logic) doesn't work: we can't have the article, because too spammy, but we can't have the redirect, because it's not spammy enough.
PROMOTIONAL is a policy, and having a brand name redirecting but "not mentioned" isn't prohibited anywhere. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#cite note-3 even discourages it for situations such as this, when there are many manufacturers producing nearly identical products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Answering this comment, but this applies to the several different places where you mentioned that "WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure"' - I interpret reason #2 at WP:RFD#DELETE, "The redirect might cause confusion", as supporting deletion in any case where the person might not understand why they've been dropped onto this page from this redirect, which includes most (though not all) redirects without a mention in the target. There's no Catch-22: we can simply not have redirects for most topics that aren't prominent enough to actually deserve a (non-spammy) mention in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvéderm Ultra

No mention at target, and no apparent alternatives for these specific brands. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE is only concerned about redirects that are not mentioned when they are "novel or very obscure". {{R from brand name}} is a perfectly appropriate situation in which a brand name is not mentioned in an article. Therefore, keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK

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. Closed a bit early per SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace essay linked in a project alias namespace. There’s a reason that sort of thing is generally avoided. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: A good reason for deletion is that userspace essays can disappear at any time. The reason this is flagged is that there are a lot of redirects to this article, but it has uncertain stability. Cross-namespace redirects are more tolerable when they are less popular. This essay is beyond ambiguity, and is definitely popular. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the essay disappears, the redirect can trivially be deleted as WP:G8. The fact that a userspace essay can be deleted by the user at any time is a reason for widely-cited essays to be moved into wikipediaspace, but I don't see it as a compelling reason to delete CNRs to userspace essays. This is hardly the only wikispace->userspace redirect for which this would be an issue, so the solution is still not to simply delete this redirect. Nor is this a uniquely widely-used essay: just on the first page of the category I linked above is e.g. WP:ASTRONOMER, which redirects to a userspace essay with a comparable number of annual pageviews and more than five times as many incoming links. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 23:10, 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).

Chicken Noodle

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soup is a primarily liquid food. A chicken noodle is not necessarily a primarily liquid food; some chicken noodles do not include soup at all. feminist🩸 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get your point, but in English, "chicken noodle" without further context is most readily associated with a variety of chicken soup; I doubt other noodle dishes that happen to contain chicken are ever referred to in this way. Googling "chicken noodle" overwhelming returns results for soup recipes. I'll refrain from voting because meh, but I'll just put that out there. — Anonymous 12:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anonymous. In English (even French, though there we'd say the equivalent poulet et nouilles), this is a reference to soup. If you had chicken noodle ice cream, it would be chicken noodle soup flavoured. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME - "chicken noodle" without "soup" is...I'm not sure I've ever heard it used. Egg noodle, yes, "chicken noodle", no. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 26 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).

2025 United States constitutional crisis

As well as DOGE's activities on federal agencies, the term 'constitutional crisis' has also been used around the same time to refer to threats to ignore court rulings as well. Xeroctic (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete popular discussion of a constitutional crisis is not limited solely to DOGE or to its actions.
This would have to be its own article, but the use of the term in a descriptive sense would have to become much more widespread in the RS than it currently is in order for it be considered a neutral point of view description. Mikewem (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the identification of this name with the target subject is not sufficiently established. Neither is expansion to an article appropriate to describe what is currently a matter of passing opinion (WP:RECENTISM). 2601:642:4F84:1590:DDA6:FEA5:D834:38CE (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeroctic: I was looking to close this discussion. Is Des Vallee's suggested target fine with you? Do you wish to bundle the 2024 redirect as well to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be WP:CRYSTAL to say that one will occur this year, and an outright constitutional crisis as that term is generally understood has not yet occurred (concerning developments wrt rule of law etc notwithstanding). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic imperialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 5#Islamic imperialism

Reverse privatization

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 Nationalization. (non-admin closure) feminist🩸 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is not discussed at the target. Remnant of an old stub. Tule-hog (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input. @Tule-hog: and @Fieari: Please note that Renationalization is not an article, so this cannot be retargeted there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 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).

May 21, 2004

No mention of May 21 at the target. Can't easily find anything to restore in the page history either. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Every day in 2003 and 2004 with the exception of December 2003 has its own redirect, and I don't see much of a reason to limit the discussion to this specific one. I would think to delete all since every other year page has few or no redirects like this. I am bad at usernames (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could just as easily be an argument for the creation of any redirects that are missing (which I am in favor of, as expressed in previous discussions.) -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie MacDonald (comedian)

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 Jamie McDonald. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jamie MacDonald (Scottish comedian). Web searches indicate that the blind Scottish comedian is the primary topic. DrKay (talk) 08:02, 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).

Boys only want love if it's torture

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 12:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems reasonable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:52, 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).

Rapes of Ronald Bennett

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 14:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logical reading of this is that it refers to Bennett being raped. However, the linked section is about Bennett being prosecuted for sex crimes he committed, not that he was the victim of. I'm not aware of comparable redirects, which would be something like Murder of Derek Chauvin. (Note: Creator was a sock, but was not evading a block at time of creation, so no G5.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:52, 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).
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_24
No tags for this post.