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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• اودهي → Awadhi language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Alt lang tagged as an R without mention. Without a mention, this does not seem to be a helpful redirect.

Comment on this redirect says the following: "Perso-Arabic script; present in article at earlier time". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 12:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a Hindi-ish language spoken in part of the Hindi heartland, and it's written in Devanagari, so it's not likely to have been written in Nastaliq script. Without evidence that the language's name for itself has been written in Nastaliq, this is a WP:FORRED situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 2 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 keep. asilvering (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• الاستوائية الوسطى → Central Equatoria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Alt lang tagged as an R without mention. Without a mention, this does not seem to be a helpful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 12:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete non-English redirects without mention as WP:COSTLY per my opinion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#Anasayfa. Jay 💬 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What does this name mean? Perhaps it's the Arabic original form of Bahr al Jabal, the Arabic name of the state when it was part of Sudan. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. It's an Arabic name for the state, confirmed by ar:وسط الاستوائية (ولاية). Arabic is the most common language spoken in South Sudan. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – satisfies WP:RFOREIGN. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:48, 9 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 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snap back to reality → Lose Yourself  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Clearly not an obvious primary topic. — Anonymous 22:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Second time someone has listed one of the redirects I made for that page for discussion. It's a lyric of the song. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no mention of the lyric so it's a nonstarter if there's nothing for readers that search this term. Ambiguous with "snapping back to reality" in the form of awareness or consciousness. Eminem didn't come up with the phrase, and search terms are only helpful if there is material directly related to the search term for readers to read about while arriving. Lyrics are the same, and lyric redirects to songs where they aren't mentioned does not give readers the context about the lyric they might have been searching for, nor any context about reality or "snapping back" to it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes ... and throw the redirect into space because "Oh, there goes gravity." Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Phrase was not coined by the song, and the song is not primarily known for this lyric. No better target. Fieari (talk) 23:29, 27 January 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Local Profile Assistant → ESIM  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Zero mentions of "local", one mention of "profile", zero mentions of "assistant". Apparently this is a software interface for ESIM devices, but my takeaway is that this is a separate topic that people might want to search for and read about, and such topic is not mentioned. Ideally, this should be redlinked until we have something to say about it on Wikipedia; the only place this might apply to is Remote SIM provisioning. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From GSMA: “The LPA (Local Profile Assistant) is a set of functions in the device responsible for providing the capability to download encrypted Profiles to the eUICC. It also presents the local management end user interface to the end user so they can manage the status of Profiles on the eUICC. The principal functions of the LPA may also be in built into the eUICC.” eSIM Whitepaper, gsma.com. It's a white paper only and I guess detailed documentation of eSIM and its features is closed-source or it's simply undocumented. Killarnee (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, until we have something informative. Jay 💬 20:42, 10 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 articlified. We're done here... (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ninja Gaiden 4 → Team Ninja  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete to encourage article creation, or if not suitable yet I'd expect a redirect to the franchise Ninja Gaiden (and it's not fair to redirect to Team Ninja anyways since PlatinumGames was given equal billing as devs). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see your argument about it being unfair to redirect to Team Ninja due to Platinum co-developing. I've changed it to redirect to Ninja Gaiden instead. As for deleting it to encourage article creation, I and a few others created the pages for FBC Firebreak and Mighty Morphin Power rangers rita's rewind because the pages were redirects so I think that deleting the article will have the opposite effect

TL;DR Keep because people are more likely to turn the redirect into a full page rather than make one themselves HazmatPyro (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot, page is an article, and a likely search term now that the game is announced. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:25, 23 January 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 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Carlos Dawon Hyde → Carlos Hyde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No reliable source shows this as his middle name Red Director (talk) 16:49, 23 January 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ana Orsini → KOLD-TV#News operation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The consensus when this page was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Orsini) was to delete, and while the page creator raised a redirect proposal, multiple participants in the discussion objected to it. This redirect is seeking to evade an AfD consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine delete it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason for this redirect to exist. Very sad story. Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having a redirect would be WP:UNDUE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is mentioned at the article. No other person with this name is mentioned on enwiki. I see no reason to delete if there is relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is active discussion (with the weight right now against inclusion) as to whether that information should be removed from the article as WP:UNDUE, which would render the redirect unnecessary. See Talk:KOLD-TV#Ana_Orsini. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, well, I will reconsider if the content is removed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable career, died of natural causes, reporter at a small-market TV station. NOTMEMORIAL. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Default Keep per Presidentman pending outcome of the UNDUE discussion. Jay 💬 15:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no longer a reference to Orsini in the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck. Delete per Dclemens1971. Jay 💬 22:25, 31 January 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 soft redirect to Wikt:paries#English. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Parietes → Wall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not discussed at target. Since this is practically always used in its biological sense, I suggest doing a soft retarget to wikt:paries#English. Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Parietal be a target? Jay 💬 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary.com entry of parietal says it is: Biology. of or relating to parietes or structural walls.. It's odd we have a {{R from adjective}} but no {{R to adjective}}. Jay 💬 14:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, no mention at that disambig. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:05, 13 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 retarget to Law schools in South Korea. asilvering (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pusan National University School of Law → Pusan National University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target article makes no mention of this law school. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Law schools in South Korea until we have mention at current target. Jay 💬 15:07, 30 January 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 23:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, D.C 20500 → White House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Goofy and improbable search term. Only one non-WP hit on Google. WP:CHEAP, yes, but where's the line between cheap and hoarding useless things because we may as well? (I nominated the wrong one before) Cremastra (u — c) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The street address of "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" is well known, and used semi-metronomicly, so is a reasonable redirect as someone unfamiliar with it might search for it to find out what it means. Thats a good use of a cheap redirect for informative purposes, which is why said redirect already exist. But the full mailing address including the ZIO code? No, that's just silly. And its creation, along with the other useless redirects below, crosses the line into stupid and goofy test edits by someone not here to help build an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments on 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, D.C 20500 on the RFD log for 15 January. Example use case: someone might wonder if we had distinct articles about the building and the institution inside it (somewhat like The New York Times Building and The New York Times, or Fifth Third Center (Cincinnati) and Fifth Third Bank), so he copy/pastes the address into the search bar because he wants the article about the building. It's unambiguous — since we don't have distinct articles about the building and its occupants, there's only one possible article to which this would refer — and not confusing, since it's accurate and unlikely to be misinterpreted as a reference to anything other than the White House. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per oknazevad. Wikipedia is not Google Maps, and there's a wide gulf between the well known street address of "1600 Pennsylvania Ave" (which is a perfectly reasonable redirect) and the full-fledged postal mailing address (which is not). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oknazevad. If you type out this redirect you would have to see and then decide to bypass the much simpler and incredibly more common "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. If someone wanted to know if a separate article about the building exists, he would probably search "White House building". Jay 💬 15:16, 30 January 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 My Dusty Road. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tear the fascists down → Woody Guthrie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Song by Guthrie; not mentioned in target or anywhere onwiki I can find. Rusalkii (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to My Dusty Road, where the song is mentioned. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to My Dusty Road per GBW. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:46, 23 January 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop typing "stop typing"! → Friends season 6#ep5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Quote not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When making redirects for song lyrics the lyric does not need to be mentioned on the page, so I just amused it was the same for quotes. I looked though the list and found Feast of Maximum Occupancy is not mentioned on the page, why does that one exist? Because it's a popular quote, just like "Stop typing "stop typing"!" you look it up and Friends stuff comes up, and redirects are cheep.

If you look at The Simpsons redirect I mentioned, it's marked with {{R without mention}}, maybe mine should of used that. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Feast of Maximum Occupancy should exist either and am inclined to nominate it too, though I'm currently on my phone and can't. Generally speaking redirecting from something that isn't explained at all on the page can be confusing or surprising to readers, who when searching a title expect information about it and not related subjects with no explanation on how the subject is connected. I still have no idea what the Feast of Maximum Occupancy is or how it connects to the episode; likewise for the "stop typing" quote. Rusalkii (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: the sun is a deadly lazer witch was kept: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#The sun is a deadly lazer despite not being mentioned on the page. Anthony2106 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bad examples across the board; song lyric redirects should be mentioned on the page, Feast of Maximum Occupancy is at risk of being deleted, "r without mention" is not a permanent solution, and no attempt of mentioning this very niche quote have been made. Not likely to be searched, doesn't give any info on the quote, leaves people confused about why they are there when they wanted to read about what they searched for, and the structure and punctuation is implausible. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 30#Feast of Maximum Occupancy. Tagged The sun is a deadly lazer as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 16:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We keep the sun is a deadly lazer because it's more popular? That quote is not mentioned on the page. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I realize that adding the without mention tag was wrong. I have now removed it. That RfD had agreed that mention was not needed. Jay 💬 17:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Feast of Maximum Occupancy was deleted yesterday. Delete this too. Jay 💬 14:45, 11 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 per WP:SNOW for the properly named redirect. The two created by a sockpuppet with Unicode characters intended to evade salting and title blacklisting have been deleted per WP:G5. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhanot (surname) → Bhanot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Bhanot (surname)‌ → Bhanot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Bhanot‌ (surname) → Bhanot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This one's really really strange. These three redirects look completely identical at first, but I am not joking when there are three different redirects that appear to have the exact same title, letter for letter; it appears that at least two of these redirects are certainly using unicode characters in the title. These redirects are all the result of a sockpuppet account trying to move-war the 'Bhanot' page to the title with the disambiguator part. If you didn't get it, take a look at the page history of Bhanot where an admin moved the page from a 'Bhanot' title that looked completely identical to the current one, and mentioned that the former title used Unicode characters.

Either way, this situation looks like a mess to me, I think it's pretty much implausible that a reader would ever type unicode characters into the search bar, given how redirects from near-identical titles with unicode characters in them for other pages never exist; should we just "WP:TNT" by deleting them all and then creating a new redirect at 'Bhanot (surname)' making certain that unicode characters are not used, or should we keep them all? — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nomination, clear duplicates created during a heated page move war. :- Ratnahastin (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first redirect, which consists entirely of regular Latin characters, as a {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Delete the other two, which have zero-width non-joiner characters hidden within them, as malformed redirects. - Eureka Lott 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EurekaLott: can you flag the two that have the bad Unicode characters somehow? I've tried to figure out which is which but I'm getting confused. Tagging them G5 would be fine, I'm going to delete them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: I pasted the article titles into https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/whatisit.html to see what characters were used. The ones with the ZWNJ characters could also be speedied under WP:R3, I suppose. - Eureka Lott 17:30, 23 January 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 soft redirect to Wikt:亞. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 亞 → Asia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

If you look at wikt:亞, this character has a lot of meanings other than "Asia", so maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 亞 is used as an abbreviation for Asia (亞細亞) in Chinese, but also as an abbreviation for Armenia (亞美尼亞). And the character also has other meanings, as you say. Between the ambiguity, potential for confusion, and limited usefulness of the redirect, I think it makes sense to delete. (For comparison, zh:亞 is a disambiguation page between Asia, Armenia, and the Chinese word for "runner-up".) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles or soft redirect based in ㊙. LIrala (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Soft redirecting would be fine with me. I don't think a disambiguation page makes sense, because as far as I can tell, Asia is the only target we have an article for with a reasonably strong tie to Chinese-speaking areas. For Armenia, this would not meet the criteria articulated at WP:RLOTE. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I agree with Mx. Granger. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find anything on enwiki that is simply called 亞 in Chinese. The kanji equivalent 亜 and the Simplified Chinese equivalent 亚 also redirect to Asia and should be included as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, whatever we decide to do with 亞, we should do the same with the simplified Chinese equivalent 亚. I can't speak for 亜 as I don't know how it's used in Japanese. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wiktionary's entry seems to imply that it is used similarly as 亞/亚. Not quite the same, but its usage also involves rank and the spelling of place names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:亞 per LIrala and Mx. Granger. Enix150 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wiktionary. I can understand disambiguation pages for Chinese phrases, but disambiguation pages for Chinese abbreviations? Most of us aren't competent to evaluate the accuracy of entries on a single-character disambiguation page. To quote WP:FORRED, Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand redirects – for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one. With a phrase, a copy-text/past-to-search-bar can identify strings that appear in target pages, so anyone can verify that the phrase belongs on a disambiguation page, but this isn't the case with abbreviations. A Wiktionary redirect will serve readers better than saying "we don't have anything about this topic"; if there weren't one, deletion would be best. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 World Figure Skating Championships → World Figure Skating Championships  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Way WP:TOOSOON. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It would be far WP:TOOSOON to start an article with this title, certainly, no argument there. However, it's not too soon for a mere redirect, especially as the target article actually does mention 2026 in a chart. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A fair point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too soon, the feeble presence of "2026" is unreferenced at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Utopes. Jay 💬 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a cheap, harmless redirect for an event occurring early next year. As Fieari stated, it's TOOSOON for the article, but I don't think it's too soon for the redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since there is some verifiable information (i.e. location), so it is not totally useless. Cheap and unambiguously correct until article creation. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The mention was in the medal tables which was unwarranted, and I have removed entries for 2025 and 2026 from the tables. Mentioned 2024 and 2025 in the lead, but ideally we need a section that can mention upcoming championships. Added 2025 to {{World Figure Skating Championships}}. Jay 💬 08:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bgsu98: Why have you added 2025 back? Jay 💬 15:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the 2025 competition is coming up and has an article already in place with information being added. 2026 was good to be removed, though. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a medal table. How is adding a blank entry to medal tables helpful? Jay 💬 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because there's a column for the location, which is relevant for future events. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The location column is relevant for past events. How is it relevant for future events in a medals table? Jay 💬 07:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a reference for the 2026 edition to the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 2 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of people whose surname is not commonly known → Stage name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No such list is contained at the target page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The original list became a redirect as the result of a "redirected/merged" edit on 6 December 2004. I'd strongly support keeping if it were merged (this is a copyright compliance issue), but as far as I can tell, it was merely redirected; no edits were made on 6 December or on the succeeding few days, nothing significant (on this scale) had happened in a long time, and the redirecting editor never edited the article between creation in 2002 and its 500th edit in 2005. So I'm left doubting that anything was merged, but I could be convinced otherwise if I've missed something. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to pseudonym. The choice to drop one's surname is not limited to entertainers.Carguychris (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Pseudonym" is just as incorrect of a target, since such a thing isn't restricted to surnames. This is an overly specific title that we have no information about. It was a junk list from 2004 that was quickly BLARed even back then. There's no reason to keep this around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This would be a confusing redirect to follow in the wild, the target would probably not contain what you expected. And this is a pretty unlikely thing to be using as a search query in the first place, if what you actually wanted was background reading on Stage name or Pseudonym. Mlkj (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of one-word stage names. Looking at the history, it seems that it was merged with List of people known by one name back in 2004, being considered as a duplicate article at that time, and then redirected to List of one-word stage names in 2009. Now, the original list was supposed to exclude stage names and just go with people that have a full name but it is not commonly known, but that kind of thing is super subjective and definitely would not withstand wikipedia standards today. Anyway, following the chain of merging, we end up at mononymous stage names, and I actually think that's a fine target for this. There is history, and it seems a lot of merging has been done over the years, so keeping the history is worthwhile. It's also an old redirect, meaning we should do our best to prevent link rot and keep the redirect in some form for that reason as well. Fieari (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There has not been a substantive list at this title for 20 years, and any attempt to guess whether the user meant stage name, pseudonym, mononym or just uncommon surname is, well, a guess. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: This appears to have been a non-notable list (or duplicate list) that has been retargeted a few times. Looking at the list from 2004, although stage name and pseudonym make sense in some cases (e.g., Madonna), this is not the case for all the list items (e.g., Galileo). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the above discussion, this redirect has a WP:XY problem, and its title is not suitable for a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 1 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 01:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yu Kawabata → Niji no Conquistador  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Yuika Obayashi → Niji no Conquistador  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Mayu Kurihara → Niji no Conquistador  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The artists are not mentioned at the target. A fandom site names the artists as group members [1], but I'm not seeing that in any reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Yu Kawabata (川端 優) has been a regular member (Honkasei, 本科生) since July 8, 2024. natalie
• Yuika Obayashi (尾林 結花) has been a regular member since July 8, 2023. natalie
• Mayu Kurihara (栗原 舞優) has been a regular member since July 8, 2023. natalie

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:虹のコンキスタドール; see its history for attribution. --Family27390 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Family27390's added mentions. Jay 💬 18:52, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Land of poets and thinkers → Germany#Culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

potentially made up? Duckmather (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not made up, just the translation of a common German phrase, see de:Dichter und Denker. —Kusma (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this redirect and think myself that the phrase is primarily applied by Germans to themselves and was probably invented by them as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that this phrase exists and is famous in Germany-speaking countries. Should probably be retargeted directly to Culture of Germany. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not mentioned at the target, and I'd expect someone searching for such a phrase would want information about its application specifically, which we don't have. This may even be notable enough for its own article, or perhaps a mention could be added at the culture article as noted above, but until then... 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was mentioned in both Germany#Culture and Culture of Germany, but I specifically asked to remove it for both articles because the sentence claimed that Germany is known internationally as the "Land of poets and thinkers", for which I couldn't find any verification. Like I wrote, the phrase was probably invented by Germans and is only used by Germans as a self-reference, in addition to being frequently wrongly thought to be a famous reputation of Germans. However, that doesn't mean we should simply deny the existence of the phrase. We lose nothing by having this redirect, and we should probably re-add the phrase as well, at least in Culture of Germany, but without falsely claiming that it's a famous reputation of Germans and instead pointing out that the phrase is a self-reference. However, simply denying the existence of this odd phrase and deleting the redirect is the wrong approach. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you find a source for the fact? It can be a German language source if necessary (but if so, it should not be used to claim they are known internationally by this appellation, just locally). Fieari (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you read my comment? That's exactly what I wrote: The phrase is probably a self-reference not known outside the German-speaking area. However, that doesn't mean we should act like this phrase doesn't exist at all either. Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I now added two sentences explaining the phrase in Culture of Germany#Literature to which we can retarget the redirect. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it's not good enough for a mention then it's not good enough for a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I wrote multiple times now: The phrase itself is notable and well-known in the German-speaking area. The phrase was literally mentioned in both Germany#Culture and Culture of Germany, but I asked for it to be removed because it was wrongly presented as a worldwide reputation of Germans, which it is not. The phrase is highly relevant as most people in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have heard of it; it even has an own article in the German Wikipedia, which has been mentioned in the discussion as well. The phrase is notable and should have an article or at least a redirect; just because the phrase has been wrongly described and therefore been removed doesn't mean it's not notable. Again: It was me who asked for the phrase to be removed from the target articles, and I did it because it was wrongly presented, not because of a lack of notability. If I hadn't done that, we wouldn't even discuss the relevance of this redirect now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of which changes my opinion that a redirect requires a mention to explain why you're there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The phrase will eventually have a mention or even an own article like in the German Wikipedia because it is undeniably notable as I explained numerous times. I still fail to see what we will lose by having this redirect. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I now added two sentences explaining the phrase in Culture of Germany#Literature to which we can retarget the redirect. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has now been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the relisting is justified, as the initial argument for nominating the redirect for deletion was that it allegedly was made up, which was proven to not be the case. The second argument was the lack of a mention, which doesn't apply anymore as well. IMHO, there's no valid basis for deletion left. Should simply be retargeted to Culture of Germany#Literature, where the phrase is described. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: When I Google "Land of poets and thinkers", the first item is a BBC article titled "Germany's land of poets and thinkers", making it clear that this is not "made up". Every search result points toward Germany. I'd also accept a more specific retarget. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This redirect clearly isn't getting deleted, but on a somewhat related note, I would like to inquire about @Maxeto0910's insistence that this term is not used outside of the German-speaking world. I see it used in two English sources ([2], [3]), yet the user still claims that it's specific to German speakers, even going so far as to call it "hardly known in non-German-speaking countries" in an article, without a citation. — Anonymous 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say the phrase is not known in English at all, just that it's not very well-known in the English-speaking world, as opposed to the German-speaking countries where probably everyone has heard the phrase multiple times in a cultural context and dozens of articles exist online. Feel free to change the wording "hardly known in non-German-speaking countries". However, two mentions in English-language articles don't exactly mean the phrase is well-known in English. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but this is Wikipedia, and you can't insert statements into articles without a reliable source to back them up, no matter how true they may appear. Furthermore, do the sources actually say the term is commonly used, or do they just use it? — Anonymous 12:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are probably hundreds if not thousands of German media articles, books, songs, TV shows etc. using the phrase, but we cannot cite hundreds of articles. Citing a number of different German sources (I gave 5) using the phrase verifies that it is used frequently. This is arguably not possible for the claim that the phrase is widely known in English as well since there are not enough English articles which prominently use it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said it was widely known in English, just that you can't claim it's "unknown" in English unless a source calls it as such. See WP:OR. — Anonymous 02:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When a phrase is not widely known and used very rarely, then it's accurate to say that it's "hardly known". I never claimed it's completely "unknown" like you wrote; claiming that would indeed be false as there are some English-language articles which use the phrase, though it's a very small number. The only think we can say for sure is that the phrase is barely used in English, as there are very few English articles using it. And no, claiming that is not original research but simply a logical deduction since you can't verify the non-existence of something. According to that logic, it would be "original research" to claim that the tooth fairy, unicorns or dragons don't exist since you can't 100% rule out the existence of anything. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgive me for misquoting you. "Hardly known", then. Regardless, this is still original research, however you defend it. The tooth fairy, unicorns, and dragons are false equivalencies, as their non-existence can be supported by reliable sources. Saying a phrase, any phrase, is widely or not widely used and only backing the claim up with primary sources using the phrase is original research. End of discussion. — Anonymous 01:20, 27 January 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. Has a mention. Will also refine to the section where the nickname is discussed. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Body (footballer) → Robert Lewandowski  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "body" at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added this nickname to the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've added him to The Body § People. Jay 💬 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh wait.. the entry was already there until Bkonrad removed him recently. Jay 💬 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as Utopes mentioned, the entry failed WP:DABNOMENTION until recently. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear why Explicit relisted this. Keep as unambiguous. Jay 💬 17:35, 30 January 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).