User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	3	12	15
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	4	40	44
AfD	0	4	4

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcut

WP:RHARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

Shortcuts

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut

WP:RFDHOWTO

STEP I.

Tag the redirect(s).

Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.

STEP II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}

{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}

~~~~

If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

STEP III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list

July 24

Lee Min-ho (singer)

Lee Min-ho (singer) → Lee Min-ho (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Currently redirects to the dab page because two people named Lee Min-ho are singers: one is the member of Stray Kids Lee Know and the other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. Which do you think is a more suitable target, Lee Know or the K-drama actor? ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as is: Judging by the pageviews, Lee Min-ho is nearly 6 times more visited than Lee Know. However, it seems that Lee Min-ho is more known for being an actor than a singer, while Lee Know is primarily known for his K-Pop singing/dancing. Most readers would type Lee Min-ho (actor) instead of (singer). However, Lee Know is better known by his stage name than his real name. I think there is too much factors at play here to accurate judge the reader's intention, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It shouldn't be deleted per Wikipedia:INCOMPDAB, which says to redirect to the more general disamb page if there is no primary topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as is The standard for partial disamsbiguation is extremely high and this doesn't meet it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep as is per above. I don't think the standard for partial disambiguation should be as high as it is, but even by my standards there is no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The base name is a singer so shouldn't it redirect there if the South Korean singer has been deemed the primary topic for the base name? If there is no primary topic the DAB should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Crouch, Swale's observation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:San Diego Clippers (NBA)

Draft:San Diego Clippers (NBA) → Los_Angeles_Clippers#1978–1984:_San_Diego_Clippers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Procedural renomination at the correct venue. Previously nominated at MfD by User:Intrisit here with rationale: Created out of an AFC script which I have no idea why. It doesn't seem to align with WP:RPURPOSE than its mainspace rdr counterpart which does the job anyway. Redundant redirect that must go! Nickps (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Taking off my procedural nom hat now, I think that no valid rationale for deletion is presented. Not opening this RfD at all per WP:NOTBURO was an option, but I want to use RfD to put an end to nom's attempts to delete the redirect out of process. Nickps (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Cross-wikispace redirect that should not be there at all. The Banner talk 09:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, such redirects are common and generally appropriate; see WP:RDRAFT. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Mesopotamian language

Mesopotamian language → Akkadian language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect currently points toward Akkadian - but there were many other languages spoken in Mesopotamia. There is also no individual article to retarget it to. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

July 23

Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals

Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals → Family of Joe Biden (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of his uncle being eaten by cannibals at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Amazingly to me this isn't just vandalism - Joe Biden's Uncle (Probably) Wasn't Eaten by Cannibals - but it isn't mentioned, and as far as I can tell, has never been mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is mentioned at q:Joe Biden#April 2024 but I don't think someone using this search term is looking for the quote but rather information about Biden's uncle (Ambrose J. Finnegan Jr.) and they won't find that at Wikiquote, or indeed more than a sentence at Family of Joe Biden#Maternal. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Thryduulf. Thought for sure this was an obvious hoax/attack page, but no, it was a real thing. There is no mention of this on Wikipedia, though. C F A 💬 23:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the coverage of the cannibal business to the family article. _pbp 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete both the redirect and the mention. WP:ONEWAY. We don't need to cover every single conspiracy theory. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep The idea of Joe Biden's uncle being eaten by cannibals (or not) has received significant enough media coverage to justify a redirect. _pbp 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
No amount of coverage justifies misleading people into thinking we have relevant content when we don't. The amount of coverage might justify adding content somewhere relevant, at which point we can consider the redirect, but unless and until that happens the redirect is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the coverage of the cannibal business to the family article. _pbp 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete. WP:Patent nonsense. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@WWGB although it really does look like nonsense at first glance, it actually isn't. See the links in my and pbp's comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wolf Man (2018 film)

The Wolf Man (2018 film) → Wolf man (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no subject mentioned in the target article as referred in the redirect's title (no 2018 film), leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to refer to. Looks like (maybe accidental) misinformation. If you look at the (now-blocked) creator's talk page history, you'll see they had a history of creating bad film redirects like this. The closest thing I could find is a documentary called Wolfman's Got Nards (2018) for which we do not have an article. C F A 💬 22:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Given that this redirect was created in 2015 the most charitable interpretation is that this is the result of a faulty crystal ball. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Wolfman", "Wolf man", and "Wolf-man"

Wolfman → Larry Talbot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wolf man → Werewolf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wolf-man → Werewolf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pretty sure these redirects should all by synced. However, I'm not sure which target is preferred. (Also, for what it's worth, Wolfmen currently targets Werewolf. In addition, Wolf man (disambiguation) exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sync all to Werewolf. The concept that the movie is based on is the primary topic, as already decided at Wolf man (disambiguation). I suppose you could make the argument that there is no primary topic, and that Wolf man should be the disambiguation page instead, but that should not be a discussion for RfD. C F A 💬 22:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick Demase

Nick Demase → Werewolf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia either. Third party search results primarily return results for a law firm. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete (speedy?): Looks like an old hoax. I can only find a Free Dictionary redirect which apparently cross-references terms from Wikipedia. So it is most likely a hoax that originated on Wikipedia and propagated elsewhere. C F A 💬 22:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete I'm not comfortable calling it a hoax (it could simply be an in-joke, simple vandalism, or a multitude of other things where there was no intent to deceive), but it certainly isn't a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruvaush

Ruvaush → Werewolf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article ... and I'm not sure if it should be or not. Per search engines, this word refers to a Romany word for the target. In addition, in the target page's talk page archives, Talk:Werewolf/Archive 1#Ruvaush refers to what this word possibly is/means. There may be value in adding this word back into the article somewhere, but I'm not even sure if the redirect refers to a similar-enough subject to the target, in addition to not being sure if the redirect has any WP:FORRED issues (but most likely not since it seems the concept of "werewolf" may have Romany roots.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Assassination threats against Donald Trump

Assassination threats against Donald Trump → 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Given the recent creation of the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, I'm not sure if the current target is the correct target anymore, specifically since an "attempt" could be a "threat" and the fact that "threats" in the nominated redirect's title is plural. My primary option here is "do not keep" with a preference towards "weak delete" if there is no strong stance between retargeting or disambiguating. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Security incidents involving Donald Trump which will list any threats against him. Pretty straightforward. Disambiguating will duplicate the existing list. C F A 💬 20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Retarget per CFA. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

AAoDT

AAoDT → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

An obscure acronym that has no precedence on Wikipedia (see list of similar pages at Special:PrefixIndex/AAo) based on a naming convention established by Wikipedia that third party search engines think I'm trying to find "Aamodt" when searching this term; when I restrict the third party search results for only "AAoDT", the top results are for a company that does drug testing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: because nothing else uses the acronym. It can be deleted or disambiguated in the future if the need arises. C F A 💬 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
...Heck, apparently, not even the target subject uses this acronym, considering the connection between the acronym and the target subject cannot be found virtually anywhere, making this redirect a combination of possible WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, and/or WP:HOAX. See similar recent discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 for since-deleted redirects TDVC, TDOTJ, and LVER. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, it is made up, but it is particularly harmless because it is not used by anything else. And it is probably too long to reasonably refer to anything else. Pretty unambiguous in my opinion. C F A 💬 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is not a term that is in use anywhere in relation to the target. Like the nom, my only hits relate to a non-notable drug testing company and then random product codes, "A minor angel. Enochian", procedurally generated URIs, and OCR errors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete. While I have used this myself as a talk page abbreviation, it is not used anywhere in media sources. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is not used anywhere and is confusing. IP75 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sadalpheretz

Sadalpheretz → Lambda Pegasi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Does not appear on the IAU list of named stars. A number of GHits, but I suspect they're all derived from our article. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Toad Town

Toad Town → Mario (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: appears to be used frequently and is pointed to the appropriate target. C F A 💬 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirecting terms to articles where the term is not mentioned is confusing to readers. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Girl Toad

Girl Toad → List of Mario franchise characters#Toadette (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target. This term is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia either. Mia Mahey (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep as plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Girl Toad" is more likely to refer to a female toad than a fictional Mario character. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Girl" is an anthropomorphic word, so not likely. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No more likely to refer to the Mario franchise Toads than real toads. Mia Mahey (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The "Toad" characters in the Mario franchise are anthropomorphic; actual toads are not. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: reasonable search term. C F A 💬 20:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The only mentions of "Girl Toad" on Wikipedia are those related to this discussion, suggesting that this is not a reasonable search term. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't really matter. It could still be a reasonable search term even if it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Someone could type "Girl Toad" into the search bar. It has received 700 page views throughout its history, suggesting it has been used at least a few times. Regardless, redirects are cheap. No reason this should be deleted. C F A 💬 23:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless a mention on the target can be added with a reliable source, this redirect should be deleted, as there is currently no information about "Girl Toad" on Wikipedia. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It is still a reasonable search term, whether or not it is mentioned in the target article. C F A 💬 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source that uses "Girl Toad" referring to Toadette. Otherwise, this redirect is WP:OR and should be deleted. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, it may be synthesis to a certain extent, but redirects are not required to be "correct" or neutral. If you google "girl toad", the first result is Toadette, indicating it is the correct target and a plausible search term. C F A 💬 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The Google Search results for "girl toad" are not from reliable sources. Half of them are unrelated to Toadette. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say they were, but it still shows that it is a plausible search term. If you really think this is an issue, I would also support a disambiguation page with Toadette and Toad (frog). C F A 💬 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr. K (film)

Mr. K (film) → The Spy: Undercover Operation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The need for this redirect seems unnecessary when the film its redirecting to doesn't even have "Mr. K." as an alternate title, it was just a working title at some poit. I propose deleting it as their is a new film with the actual title "Mr. K." premiering at TIFF soon that would make more sense to have the page title "Mr. K (film)" (link to film https://tiff.net/events/mr-k) Apologies if this isn't exactly right, this is my first time doing this TDFan1000 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think this upcoming Mr. K should have its own article, you can be bold and create it yourself (though probably not now since you already started the discussion). Personally, I don't see a ton of coverage for it, and I'm not sure there's enough to justify an article (though I've never created a film article and I don't know what's typically expected for an upcoming film), but if you disagree then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else there is to do with this redirect. I agree that it would make more sense as an article for the upcoming movie, but only if it's right that that movie have one in the first place. Otherwise, I suppose retargeting to Mr. K, a dab page where I just added mentions of both films, would be sensible. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made the page an article related to the 2024 film. I think there's enough info out there to justify creating it and obviously once the film is out there'll be more to add. Also, the film being selected to premiere at a well known film festival justifies it's creation enough, no? There's other film pages created based on less, I guess, but it makes sense to me to get rid of the original redirect and make the article about the 2024 film. Let me know if that's ok! TDFan1000 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close because there is now an article at the target. C F A 💬 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Autoblog

Autoblog → Spam blog (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target page uses "auto blog" (with the space) once in the lead, unsourced (source in the sentence verifies "splog" but does not use "auto". Seems like this redirect (without the space) should be going to the publication mentioned in the hatnote, and perhaps some changes should be made to the spam blog page (or at least another source found for use of the term). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to deleting the redirect. It's been in place for years. As for the target page, it's using a lot of the terminology incorrectly and needs a lot of work. However, the usual "reliable sources" aren't reliable with respect to SEO terminology because there are no definitive sources of information on that terminology. An "auto blog" is not necessarily a spam blog. Not all spam blogs are auto blogs. Virtually no one in the industry uses "splog" and it was never a very popular term. It was used primarily here on Wikipedia. The word is found mostly in non-SEO glossaries and a few Web hosting companies' sites. They're either copying the Wikipedia definition or the original Wired article that introduced the term. I think this is why people like me mostly just watch the SEO pages for vandalism. They are at best borderline acceptable for Wikipedia inclusion. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I don't see any reliable sources using the term. It should also be removed from the lead of the target. C F A 💬 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Neo-newtonian

Neo-newtonian → Spacetime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Neo newtonian → Spacetime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This isn't explained at the target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: term is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I see too many varied usages in sources for it to be targeted to any specific one. This use case certainly isn't the first I would suggest. If they had to go anywhere, I would think Newtonian would make the most sense, but without the wider usage on site it feels like keeping them for the sake of keeping. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Newtonian as an ambiguous term: seems to be used ([1][2][3][4], etc.). A mention may be warranted somewhere. C F A 💬 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Selvaratnam

Peter Selvaratnam → Mandibular notch (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There doesn’t seem to be any mention of Peter Selvaratnam at Mandibular notch, and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of Mandibular notch in the article that previously existed at Peter Selvaratnam before it was cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that the Wikipedia page "Peter Selvaratnam" redirects to "Mandibular notch." I created the initial content for "Peter Selvaratnam" on June 24, 2024, and this redirection appears to have been set up on November 17, 2023, by the user Abishe.

I believe this redirection might be incorrect, as the content on "Peter Selvaratnam" is not related to "Mandibular notch." I would appreciate any input on whether this redirection was made in error or if there are specific reasons for it.

Additionally, if you have any suggestions on how to address this or how to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, please let me know.

Thank you for your assistance! Camberwell3124 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Abishe says they changed the article to a redirect because it "would fail WP:GNG". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just so everyone's clear, User:Abishe created and redirected the Peter Selvaratnam article and User:Camberwell3124 made the draft at Draft:Peter Selvaratnam. - Eureka Lott 19:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Nonsensical redirect. Even if there is some correlation between the two pages, this would be a very WP:SURPRISING article to arrive at when searching for this person. C F A 💬 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiimake

Wiimake → Video game remake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neologism not mentioned in the target. The term is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see it (and the alternate "Wii-make") being used in some news coverage, most prominently "The Case for Wiimakes", but not nearly enough that it would demand usage in the target article or anything. Not sure it does any harm, but the use case seems limited as well. I guess I lean toward deletion, but not strongly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

i would ALMOST suggest retargeting to the vaguely klonoa-shaped travesty we were cursed with in 2008 as a half-joke, as that seems to be the primary topic for the entire term (not for a good reason, mind you), but that'd be cheap. as is, no idea if it would be better to retarget it to some list of wii games, add a mention there, or delete, but i'll stick with adding a mention for now cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: term is mentioned in reliable sources (Nintendo Life, Wired, eurogamer.net). No reason to delete. Obviously not notable on its own but a redirect is warranted. I would support a mention at Video game remake or elsewhere, but that is not needed for this to be kept. C F A 💬 20:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Older

Old business