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 00:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Monatomic gold → List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#MonatomicGold  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was valid for exactly 22 minutes in April of 2017. Since then the redirect has been edited and reverted a couple of times, but apparently nobody thought to check if the redirect made sense. It points to a sub-heading that was removed almost immediately after it was created, and doesn't really have any relevance to the topic except that Monatomic Gold is a scam cure-all that is occasionally sold by pseudoscientists. If there's a "List of Scam Cure-alls" then this redirect should go there, otherwise it should just be deleted. ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a sourced mention at Laurence Gardner#Career that explains what it is - "In Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark he claimed that the Ark of the Covenant was a machine for manufacturing "monatomic gold" – a supposed elixir which could be used to extend life." but that's the best we have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not provide navigation, no target --Bejnar (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not provide navigation. Would reconsider if the 'monatomic gold' scam gets enough notice to deserve explicit coverage in an article or section. The mention of the scam in our Laurence Gardner article seems too brief to qualify as a target of this redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Usage has been justified and a mention of this spelling has been added, so my deletion argument is moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yaxye → Baho Nugaaled  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, and although this name appears in a few other articles none appear to discuss it in depth. Delete to allow for search results unless a justification for the current target can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Yaxye is the Somali transliteration spelling of Yahye. Its useful to keep as this tribe reoccurs as a title in some colonial records, and readers may be left confused as to what it means if left without a redirect. Its also currently hyperlinked in a data table. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) feminist (+) 18:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:RAJ → User:Sitush/CasteSources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete- When we come across the wikilink WP:RAJ, we get the impression that it is some Wikipedia Policy page pertaining to Raj era sources. But when we open the wikilink, we find ourselves to be redirected to an essay of an editor. We know that essays are not policy pages but opinions of editors. So, this redirection should be deleted as it gives false impression of being a policy page. Shinjoya (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia namespace redirects should be for general Wikipedia-wide pages only. This page only represents the user's own opinion. JIP | Talk 19:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP shortcuts are used not just for policies, but also for guidelines, and – yes! – essays as well. In fact, the majority of pages in Category:Wikipedia essays have similar shortcuts pointing to them. The fact that this essay happens to reside in userspace is immaterial (if it's such an issue, just move it) – it is the work of several people, not just Sitush. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala and WP:ADHERENCE. - Jay ^(Talk) 15:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target, User:Sitush/CasteSources, is clearly marked with {{user essay}}, and it can't easily be confused with a policy page that would be marked with {{policy}}. We have hundreds of WP shortcuts to pages in WP:NS2, and this is no different. I see no policy-based reason for deletion.
  This should have been bundled with the similar redirect Wikipedia:RSCASTE, no need for two discussions.
  Wikipedia:RAJ was first prodded, and correctly deprodded by Usedtobecool. Nom has not tagged Wikipedia:RAJ per WP:RFD#HOWTO. Creator has not been notified, but I will do that shortly. Sam Sailor 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Withdrawing nomination, if this corresponds to a standard transliteration of the Russian name then there's no problem with the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Černobyl' → Chernobyl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between Chernobyl and Czech. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,this spelling also corresponds to the name in Russian romanized according to scientific transliteration. Seems unharmful but not useful. —Michael Z. 18:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 00:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lapland (Tampere) → Lappi, Tampere  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Useless redirect. Unlike Lapland, Finland, Lappi, Tampere is not called "Lapland" in any language. It is completely unrelated to the vast Sámi area in the north, the name is pretty much a coincidence only. There are no incoming links either. Delete. JIP | Talk 15:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Jay ^(Talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not used, and potentially confusing in selection list, as per nom. --Bejnar (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dōngjīng (Japan) → Tokyo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Propose deletion. No one speaks Chinese in Tokyo. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. China and Japan have enough shared history to warrant this redirect, it's unambiguous (dab at Dongjing lists other possible targets but Tokyo is the most prominent by far) and I'm not seeing how it's harmful. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "東京" is pronounced Dongjing in Chinese, Tokyo in Japanese, Dokyo in Korean and Dong Kinh in Vietnamese. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and readers will use the Japanese transliteration to search because the city is in Japan, not the other three. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless they encounter the Chinese word somewhere in a reference about Japan, and try to look it up here to figure out the connection. The fact of common histories makes this much more likely than, say, searching for the Swahili word for Tokyo. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the 🐿️. I can think of about a billion people who might be searching Wikipedia using a Chinese transliteration of a neighboring country's capital. (Well, at least, those who can get around the Great Firewall's block.) They may well just assume that that's the English transliteration as well; it's not like it's intuitively obvious to me as an English speaker which transliterations that we use are the same in other languages. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tokei would be the "Chinese" pronunciation (from the Japanese version of Chinese pronunciation found in Japanese, as terms have a native pronunciation and an imported Chinese pronunciation) Since the imported pronunciation predate Mandarin, it shouldn't use the Mandarin term, but the Middle Chinese pronunciation romanization. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the squirrel; it'd be more plausible without the diacritics imo but not a big deal. Re the IP immediately above, the keep arguments are based on the relevance of modern Mandarin and not the onyomi reading. The nom's "No one speaks Chinese in Tokyo" argument is unfortunate given that it's obviously untrue; a better argument would be that Chinese isn't culturally relevant to Tokyo, but when written out it doesn't seem much better. As for Korean Dokyo, there's a plausible cause to hatnote it at Dōkyō, but unlike Dongjing it's just a phonetic transcription of Tokyo anyway. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937, and weren't expelled until 1945. For me, that's a close enough connection to pass WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 67 and numerous previous precedents about foreign pronunciations of Chinese-character names. The claim that this is useful to a billion Chinese speakers is belied by the fact that the disambiguator is in English; someone who doesn't know how to say Dongjing in English realistically isn't going to know how to say Riben either. Meanwhile 東京 exists, and unlike this redirect it actually gets used [1] - likely because it's written in the actual writing system used by a billion Chinese speakers, and doesn't require any disambiguator. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 61.239.39.90, not useful, not used, not appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Very unlikely search term, per 61. - Nabla (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 no consensus. As the discussion boiled down to a disagreement as to whether the alternative spelling of Aydın or the name is more primary, this discussion may be better revived as a move request for Aidin (name). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aidin → Aydın  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Long standing redirect to the city, a new user wants to redirect to an article on the name Aidin (name). Is the city the primary use? Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The target Aydın contains a link to Aidin (name) in its hatnote. Polyamorph (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Aidin (name) over Aidin as WP:PTOPIC (there don't seem to be any other full title matches) and hatnote to Aydın from there. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment PEIsquirrel's suggestion seems appropriate, happy for this to be closed early to move Aidin (name) over Aidin. Polyamorph (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aidin is a common alternative spelling of the city's name, much used in the past. All results I see on a Google Books search are for the city, and the personal name appears to be quite obscure. The only justification for departing from the obvious primary topic here would be the need to reduce the hatnote overload at Aydın. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The city seems to be primary. --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the Move per squirrel, except that instead of hatnote, add entries for the place and SS Aidin (1873). - Jay ^(Talk) 16:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Hog Farm _Talk 00:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajay Bahl → B.A. Pass  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Bahl also directed Section 375. While I'm not sure that there's enough about him for this to be a WP:REDLINK candidate, it's definitely an WP:XY situation. More generally, I'm not a huge fan of artist → work redirects, outside of WP:BIO1E cases. I don't think they usually help our readers find what they're looking for. Someone looking for B.A. Pass or Section 375 will presumably search the titles of those movies, not the director's name. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Subject could be same as user Ajaybahl whose only contribution was to the target page. - Jay ^Talk 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage creation of a standalone article. - Jay ^Talk 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I was trying to create an article for this director but got to know that the page was once created and deleted. I have checked further and found that the director is working consistently in the Hindi film industry. Please guide me if I can create a fresh article for this person. Amavas Ki Raat (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CSAI → Catholic Scout Association in Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

CSAI can refer to a number of things other than the Catholic Scout Association in Israel; that article does not actually list it as an acronym in use. Most of the things that CSAI stands for are non-notable companies or products, but one usage comes up in some fairly significant contexts: CSAI as short for child sexual abuse imagery, a less common variant of child sexual abuse material (the latter of which is mentioned in the lede at Child pornography). Most notably, Google uses the term in a number of contexts, particularly CSAI Match—a software used by a number of sites—and in this paper written in collaboration with the NCMEC. As such, I suggest that we retarget to Child pornography; a hatnote can be placed there if someone can find RS using "CSAI" for the scouting association. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The overwhelming favourite on Wikipedia is the Italian Motorsport body, but it doesn't have an article nor has anything that comes close to it. Otherwise, CSAI is the former abbreviation of Chuvash State Agrarian University, and the CernySmith Adjustment Index known later as the CernySmith Assessment. - Jay ^Talk 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from the above ones, and the current target, Disambig also to the Italian auto club per Bejnar, and Child Sexual Abuse Imagery per nom. - Jay ^(Talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. There is no clear primary topic on google for what people are looking for so most people will be very surprised to end up at the child pornography article, as will those looking for the primary topic on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not and should not be censored but we should not be redirecting people to articles about pornography of any sort (especially pornography that is illegal (nearly?) everywhere) unless we are sure that it really is the primary topic for the search term. I don't think the normal standard has been met in this case, let alone the higher one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Thryduulf -- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate There are multiple targets and no primary. Note: Commissione Sportiva Automobilistica Italiana (CSAI) can be linked as Automobile Club d'Italia#Competition oversight. And we must not forget the CernySmith Adjustment Index.  --Bejnar (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Primus. ✗plicit 07:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Primus (Dungeons & Dragons) → Outer Plane#Standard D&D cosmology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is not mentioned at the target, and because it isn't clear whether Primus is a character, or rank, or place, or whatever, it is a confusing redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities where he is mentioned. BOZ (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Primus where he is mentioned now. I think that information could fit into Outer Planes, but the other is better in my opinion. Daranios (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities per the above. BD2412 T 02:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the best target for this would be Modron (Dungeons & Dragons), but that article was redirected last year. - Eureka Lott 18:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, thus my rationale. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game → Sonic the Hedgehog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous redirect. This can refer to any future Sonic the Hedgehog game without a title. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I see no indication that there presently exists a Sonic the Hedgehog video game which does not have a title, and if there were it would not likely be notable yet (owing to its not being titled). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's an upcoming Sonic game without a publicly-announced title. (The title was leaked as Sonic Rangers, but Sega hasn't officially announced it yet.) JOEBRO64 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Delete, but for the record, if you dig back farther in the history, it was written as a draft for the upcoming game likely to be titled Sonic Rangers. I redirected it on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON and there being a better developed draft at Draft:Sonic Rangers. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Good find, thanks. I still say delete, but less strongly, since there is no article on this upcoming game yet. If/when the draft is promoted I think that both titles are valid as search terms: I don't have a preference for which title should be used for the article, but the other title should redirect to it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a teaser for a new Sonic game (coming in 2022). The title (Sonic Rangers) has been found from the metadata of a leaked teaser.B1ue64 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, no one doubts that a future Sonic game was announced and will be released someday. The discussion point is really more of a "will a reader really realistically use this search term and be helped by where it leads them"? Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the title was already leaked, so there's no need for "Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game". - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per point four of the reasons to keep redirects. The page history and incoming links need to be preserved. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Theres a draft that's been in development for a long time that's more comprehensive. So the page history doesn't particularly need to be preserved when it doesn't contribute to anything that's ever published. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Readers are not idiots. - Nabla (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Actually I was a bit of an idiot - hey... it happens... :) - and misread this. I hope I got it now. The redirect as is is useless, because - alas - a reader looking for a new Sonic's game is perfectly able to look at Sonic's article without any redirect, so delete the redirect as useless; or, given the game is bound to exist we should turn this back into an article, to gather whatever information is known and later move it to the proper name (I don't like that much, but for WP's process of keeping up with the news it seems OK), meaning that turn back to article and keep is also a good choice (first one to me). - Nabla (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 07:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mood Ring (Lorde song) → Lorde discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target and as far as I'm aware, there is currently no reliable news source covering that this song exists. It may be a song on Lorde's upcoming Solar Power album, however we do not know at this stage. I asked the creating editor not to create speculative redirects on their talk page, however I received no acknowledgement of my message. Ss112 05:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. Unconfirmed fan rumor. Can be recreated if confirmed by RS. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is nothing more than a rumour. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 05:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 as WP:CSD#G7. ✗plicit 12:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Olivia Rodrigo Album → Sour (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete: Not much to be said – Sour is rarely referred to as "Olivia Rodrigo Album" and the term is not mentioned on the Sour page. PassedDown (talk | contribs) 01:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. Olivia Rodrigo has only released one album, so this isn't an ambiguous term, and I don't see it otherwise being harmful, and redirects are cheap. That said, the Wikipedia search bar is not meant to be Google, and redirects like these create a maintenance overhead, since we'll have to either delete or retarget if she releases a second album. That is to say, this is not the kind of redirect that I think people should create, but not harmful enough to justify the person-hour cost of an RfD. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete since it would be confusing if Olivia Rodrigo released another album in the future. We don't mention 1989 (Taylor Swift album) as "Taylor Swift album". It would be confusing since she [Taylor] has released multiple albums. I also stand by PassedDown comment. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 11:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that you created this redirect, and that my keep was very weak, I'm gonna just strike my !vote so as to make this G7-eligible, and will tag the redirect accordingly. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 03:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neoliberal feminism → Liberal feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete: term not mentioned on target page, no more relevant target found, no incoming links. Liberalism and neoliberalism are not the same thing. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this is a term, it's unlikely to mean the same thing as "liberal feminism" anyways. (What it does/would mean is a separate question, since "neoliberal" can mean a dozen different things, half of them antonyms.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.