Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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, you do not need to 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. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be 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.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • 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, 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?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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 "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title 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.
  9. 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 it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. 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[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. 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 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.
  5. 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. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered and non-confirmed users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand.) This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore 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:

  1. 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. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. 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).
  3. 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.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

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[edit]

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • 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.
  • 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
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.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

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

{{subst:RFDNote|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 redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • 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.

Current list[edit]

March 21[edit]

Menardian[edit]

I have worked at Menards for years and have never once heard this term used to describe team members or customers. Goveganplease (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

An Xuan (An Xuan)[edit]

Delete. Unlikely redirect. Much like John Wayne (John Wayne) wouldn't make any sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of malformed disambiguation pages[edit]

Delete all as WP:COSTLY redirects to disambiguation pages, all of which are malformed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple malformed redirects to disambiguation pages[edit]

Delete all as WP:COSTLY redirects to disambiguation pages, all of which are malformed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris Collins(Politician)[edit]

Malformed DAB redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep we don't usually delete redirects resulting from page moves, unless there's some particular reason why the redirect is inappropriate. Hut 8.5 22:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason redirects from page moves are kept is because we don't want to break external links to the page. So if you move something from James Poliot to James E. Poliot, deleting James Poliot is bad since links may have been made to James Poliot. This does not apply in the case of badly formed titles that existed for 6 minutes, and which no longer point to the page they used to point to. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

0xE2 0x98 0xA3 (e298a3)[edit]

Unlikely input format, and this is the UTF-8 sequence rather than the Unicode point number. NeonMerlin 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Verizon Center (Minnesota)[edit]

Nothing redirects here, nothing would be lost through its deletion, and since the facility is changing its name on 1 April 2019, it's unlikely anyone would try to link to this page rather than the current one to which it redirects. Would have requested a CSD but hesitated because there is minor page history. B.Rossow · talk 20:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The redirect is harmless at worst, helpful at best. From the article's history, this was the title of the article for about two months in 2017, which is a significant enough amount of time to keep by default. I actually prefer disambiguating by State only unless there are multiple things in the State by that name because it is more WP:CONCISE, but it seems that will be irrelevant soon anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Search results[edit]

Lemma neither referred to in nor synonymous with given target. Not a good redirect. Hildeoc (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Obama's Birthday[edit]

Not the focus of the section, possibly WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. It starts with "Obama was born on August 4, 1961". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali Lotfi[edit]

This redirect should be transformed into a WP:DAB since we have many people with the same name, including Ali Lotfi (footballer), Ali Lotfi (film director) and Aly Lotfy Mahmoud. Ben5218 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Largest retailer[edit]

Created by a former editor who is now blocked, most importantly, one could argue that many retailers qualify as the "Largest" retailer. Goveganplease (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unencyclopedic and implausible search term; unclear exactly how Walmart is the "largest" retailer; can easily change in the future. Geolodus (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geolodus. Ben5218 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Retail#Global top ten retailers or any other list that contains information about large retailers. feminist (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

HSW Brasil[edit]

Former article who's redirect is misspelled, and also doesn't see much use whatsoever. Goveganplease (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Everfresh Delights Supermarket[edit]

Implausible search term referring to an in-game virtual supermarket that isn't discussed anywhere in the article. Goveganplease (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I made the redirect 8 years ago and I have no idea why. Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Xero (U.S.A. band)[edit]

One of many implausible redirects to the Linkin Park Wikipedia article. Goveganplease (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. They were named Xero, and there is no other band in the US named Xero, so while these redirects may not have high usage, they are accurate and harmless. feminist (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:GregLowenthal11/Fuse (song)[edit]

Seems to be an old draft of a song from Linkin Park created by a user no longer editing the encyclopedia. Goveganplease (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking For You[edit]

Search term not found anywhere in the article, if this is a song of his, a possible redirect to the specific album it comes from would work. Goveganplease (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Twitter page of Justin Bieber[edit]

Another implausible redirect. I could understand THIS being a redirect, especially because many artists use a similar naming format for their social media handles and as such, these types of titles are used on Wikipedia as redirects but this particular verbiage seems too far of a stretch for my liking. Goveganplease (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ihanna[edit]

Not a plausible search term, also created by a user who was blocked later on. Goveganplease (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Readers are unlikely to miss the first letter, particularly one that is pronounced. feminist (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mother-Daughter Exchange Club[edit]

A nn film series. Target page does not mention subject. Compare with Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2#Budapest_(film_series) which closed as delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 01:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Chainmail bikini[edit]

See concern raised by Equinox at Talk:Gender representation in video games#"Chainmail bikini" redirects here, but.... I agree that it's a women's issue reaching beyond the scope of video games, though the Gender representation in video games article currently contains more information on the topic. feminist (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Bikini armor and the "scalemail bikini" link from Bikini in popular culture both go to Gender representation in video games. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 01:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to have a wider target than just video games, since this really this is something present across pop culture in general, not just videogames. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

A&B (Disambiguation)[edit]

malformed DAB page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2nd Avenue (Disambiguation)[edit]

misformatted DAB page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

212th Division(disambiguation)[edit]

misformatted DAB page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Romantic relationships in Peanuts[edit]

The article doesn't discuss any romantic relationships except for one mentioning of Peppermint Patty's infatuation for Charlie Brown early on in the strip. Implausible search term. Goveganplease (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Мексика[edit]

No sense in using Russian to redirect to an article for a non-Russian country. Goveganplease (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We-Keep-eIdea[edit]

I feel like this spelling would be quite a stretch for anyone to search for. Goveganplease (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete implausible. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

👩‍🦯[edit]

This combination of emojis is literally never going to be typed and doesn't even render on most systems. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't actually a "combination of emojis", but is a single character that should be properly displayed when correctly rendered. As this emoji was only recently added this year, it'll take a few months or so for support to be introduced across different platforms, at which time this redirect, like many others of the same purpose, will be of meaningful use. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep emojis with a clear meaning should normally redirect to either an article about that meaning, to a disambiguation page/set index if it's ambiguous or to an article about the emoji itself. In this case it does have a clear and unambiguous meaning, we don't have an article about the emoji and we do have an article about that meaning so this is correct. People do use Wikipedia to look up what emojis represent if they are unfamiliar with them (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete completely unintelligible selection of two random emojis, and thus completely unlikely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a single emoji composed of three UTF characters, if you see multiple ones then your browser is not rendering them correctly - the error is at your end not with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ravenpuff (assuming it is accurate). This sounds like a technical issue. - PaulT+/C 19:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It is accurate, the emoji is defined as "woman with probing cane". Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Infected Mushroom band members[edit]

Not plausible spellings of the band's members. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Working on Eisen at this very moment, I noticed there was a redirect called Eizen, but the only article that that spelling pulled up was the redirect in question. However, there is one reference cited that did spell Erez Eisen as Erez Eizen. The other spellings I have no knowledge about. However, since this was originally a German name meaning iron, I could understand why transliterations might cause two spellings of this particular family name. I suggest checking who created the Eizen redirect to Eisen, and who added the Eizen-spelling reference. If they are the same person, given that the reference I skimmed also transliterates at least one other foreign term (Hebrew, perhaps), then remove the Erez Eizen redirect. If the surname redirect and the article reference are created by different accounts, let that redirect be. Thanks for all your hard work! Geekdiva (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

W/[edit]

Inspired by the nomination of Wiki/ down below. I'm wondering what we should do with this redirect. I don't think the current target makes sense, given that "w/" only means "with" in the plain English meaning of the term and none of the articles in the disambiguation deal with that. Should we delete it? Should we retarget it to Main Page as a likely mistake per below? King of ♠ 02:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:w/. Almost nobody is going to be helped by either deletion or retargetting this to the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Food (Kirby)[edit]

Makes no sense whatsoever? No need for this redirect! Goveganplease (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This would make sense if there was a section or other significant content dealing with food in the context of this character, but there isn't. The word "food" appears three times in the article, each time in passing, so someone searching for this will not be helped. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete While food does play a roll in the plot of some of the games I doubt anyone looking up Kirby would type this.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dialog[edit]

Retarget to Dialogue (disambiguation). Let's analyze the different varieties of English: In the UK, some speakers do not use the "dialog" spelling at all, preferring "dialogue" for all senses, but when they do use "dialog" it invariably refers to the computer terminology. In the US, "dialogue" is the predominant spelling for the literary term for most people (you can compare the Google results for "new york times" "dialog" vs. "new york times" "dialogue" or any major paper) even though some minor publications prefer otherwise, but "dialog" is the pretty much the only acceptable spelling for the computer term. Therefore, I'd argue that taken as a whole, the computer sense of "dialog" is at least as prominent, if not more so, than the literary sense; in any case, the literary sense should not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this spelling. The top 30 Google results when I search "dialog" are as follows: 13 for proper nouns (e.g. business names), 11 for dialog box, 4 for dictionary definitions (which cover all senses), and only 2 for literary dialogue; for "dialogue" I get 20 instances of the literary term, 8 dicdefs, and 2 proper nouns. A similar case is Prologue (literary term) vs. Prolog (computer programming language); even though the literary term is much much more important overall, when we concern ourselves with just the spelling without "-ue" at the end then other uses dominate. King of ♠ 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Z105 with Joey Mack[edit]

Another SNL related redirect with no clear explanation in the article itself, that also seems to be a pointless search term anyways. Goveganplease (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Shit on Deborah's Desk[edit]

Apparently part of a Lonely Island song, but no info is provided in the article whatsoever. Goveganplease (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Unlikely search term with no reference to target article. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts)[edit]

Unlikely search term that hasn't seen much use. Goveganplease (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We should have something as a redirect so we can link it to the appropriate places in the film's article or Mike Judge's bio. Office Space (shorts) is better, per WP:SLASH and basic legibility. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki\[edit]

Again, not a likely search term one would enter in the hopes of reaching the main page. Goveganplease (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - this one, with a backslash instead of a forward slash, does not seem to be in use by anyone. I think if anyone typed the URL the software would replace the backslash with a forward slash, which would make the address functionally equivalent of the redirect in the section below. I don't really know if that's how it works, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • In my experimentation with F\ I'm always taken to either search results or a page to start an article, never the F/ redirect or it's target (f-number). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or weak retarget to Wiki. It does get some hits so people are using it, but it's not clear what they are looking for - the Main page or Wiki articles seem the most likely. Unfortunately google completely ignores the \ character when searching so it's of no help at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible redirect. --B dash (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki/[edit]

Not a likely search term for one to enter in when they wish to be taken to the main page. Goveganplease (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Goveganplease: see the "stats" link beside the redirect up at the top of this section. You may need Java enabled for the pageviews tool to work, I'm not sure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Very likely accident. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is most likely that someone is looking for the main index to Wikipedia by navigating from an article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphiumhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ). As the main portal to Wikipedia, the main page is almost certainly what they are looking for. Some people are possibly looking for the article about Wikipedia, which is prominently linked at the very top of the page, so easy to find. In other cases it will be an accident, but the main page is not a bad place to start from to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.[edit]

This is such an inconvenient wording, I imagine nobody would search for him using this style of name. Are there other pages using this wording as well? Goveganplease (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's not very convenient to type, sure, but that's his full name with his common name, in the usual long format for providing that information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this redirect is somewhat useful - though not as useful as Joseph Robinette Biden Jr..--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep inconvenient (but not impossible) to type, but not to copy and paste or to follow a link to. As above this is a correct and conventional way to render his name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

DJ Pone[edit]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Called by Gringe, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Birdy Nam Nam as former member. He was also in some other bands but they don't have English Wikipedia articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

MBVT[edit]

May be confused with Merchants Trust (mbvt.com) B dash (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment The primary topic for MBVT on google is overwhelmingly Merchant Bancshares, a name that is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Barring one ref leading to MBVT on Merchants Trust, there is nothing on the page. Even link that says Merchants Trust website points to a different url. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody Cares (One Direction song)[edit]

No such song at target. There is a 'Nobody Compares' which already has a redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Railways[edit]

I propose retaretting this to the broader Portal:Trains, which being global in scope is more likely to be what is being looked for, particularly as "Railroads" is a more common term than "Railways" in North America. The current target is included in the "Related portals" box at the bottom of the proposed target's main page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per WP:R#ASTONISH. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. I would add that this redirect was left behind following a page move for globalization reasons. It's nice that you asked before changing the target, I don't anticipate your proposal being controversial. It's silly that anybody looking for a railway portal gets redirected to the North American one. – voidxor 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom, for globalization purposes --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan coup d'état[edit]

Delete: Violation of NPOV, no coup has happened or has been attempted.--Jamez42 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete: as per Jamez42.--MaoGo (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Delete: Violation of NPOV, no coup has happened or has been attempted.--Jamez42 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete: as per Jamez42.--MaoGo (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete: will never be useful, not a thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep there is a strong argument one has been attempted, the army was urged to defect by both Gaudio and foreign govs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talkcontribs)

Sinic[edit]

Not even listed in the article or talk page whatsoever. Goveganplease (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is an adjective meaning "Chinese" or "influenced by Chinese (culture)", e.g. Sinic languages, Sinicization of Tibet, so the target is relevant but not actually useful. Another option would be to retarget to Sino (disambiguation) and add entries for "Sinic" there, but I'm initially less keen on that idea. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowflake-in-Chief[edit]

Seems more like an attack redirect than an actual redirect of any purpose. Goveganplease (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – The name/redirect is based on a The Guardian piece: Brammer, John Paul (16 January 2017). "America: behold, your Snowflake-in-Chief". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 April 2017. Retrieved 4 April 2017. And is expanded on in Snowflake (slang). It is not intended as an attack.
    Also note There is a similar redirect for President Snowflake from the same section with the same intent/rationale from a CNN piece: Van Jones: Trump is 'President Snowflake', CNN Video, archived from the original on 19 May 2017, retrieved 19 May 2017 Whatever outcome should apply to both terms IMHO.
    If Donald Trump is not appropriate, perhaps a retarget to Snowflake (slang)List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States#Donald Trump instead would be better? - PaulT+/C 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value. We don't create redirects for every nickname used in newspaper articles.  — Scott talk 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Not every nickname, but those that have multiple reliable sources using the name qualify per WP:RNEUTRAL (note, references point to both snowflake-in-chief and president snowflake). - PaulT+/C 16:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or Retarget to List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States#Donald Trump and add these entries there. WP:RNEUTRAL applies. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Note there is a discussion happening on the talk page of the nicknames article about whether the "Snowflake" nicknames should be included. If it turns out they are not to be listed there (though there isn't much coherent opposition to it currently) I think the redirect (to Trump or the nickname page, with a small preference to Trump) still qualifies per WP:RNEUTRAL. - PaulT+/C 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Professor Obama[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Korrek[edit]

No information about character in target article; only mentioned in namedrops. Page was recently deleted at AFD [1], with several voters specifically stating not to make it a redirect. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: To be accurate, the consensus was against redirecting the existing content and edit history to another article (rather than deleting those), but there was no comment on whether we should not have a free-standing redirect at all (at least, I am not aware that AFD as a process can mandate that no redirect should ever exist when the non-notable content has been deleted). BOZ (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I added a little more context at the target article, so it is now more than just a namedrop. I did not knowingly copy or merge any content from the deleted article. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Cypriot conflict (1955–64)[edit]

Delete. Redirect from a page move revert, the page has been moved back to its previous title "Cypriot intercommunal violence", because the undiscussed move to "Cypriot conflict (1955–64)""Cyprus crisis (1955–64)" appears to have been original research combining two distinct conflicts (the Cyprus Emergency (1955–59) and the Cyprus crisis of 1963–64) into one, which is not recognized by reliable sources and may be confusing (see discussion at Talk:Cypriot intercommunal violence#Title and scope of the article, and original research), and therefore should not be presented as a search suggestion option. All incoming links from article space have been removed. The modified redirect Cypriot conflict (1955-64) (regular dash instead of en dash) should be deleted for the same reason, as well as the talk page redirects. IamNotU (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The formalist vs substantivist debate[edit]

Orphan and delete - Formalist–substantivist debate was created with this title, but it was moved because of WP:THE. The redirect should be deleted as well. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. As per nominator's comments. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per {{R from move}} and the comment that there are numerous incomming links, which are likely from external as well as internal sources and we gain nothing by breaking them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf; I wouldn't consider this redirect harmful in any way, and Qzekrom didn't provide much particular reason for deleting it either. Also, "The" redirects to non-proper, but name-specific nouns (eg. The Phillippines, The Mona Lisa, The Great Purge) are rather common. Geolodus (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Portal:Democratic Party[edit]

A misleading redirect forcing the reader into a single instance - the national version of the US based party. The more useful page is Democratic Party - a dab page with numerous entries. Part of the mass creation of portal spam titles. Delete it or redirect to the mainspace DAB page. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep – it leads to the only portal currently on a democratic party. If and when there are more, the redirect can be replaced with a disambiguation page. It is not a good idea to redirect portal titles to non-portal pages, because it is misleading.    — The Transhumanist   23:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, and in fact, move Democratic Party (United States) to this title. Somewhere along the way someone got the idea that the titles of portals need to match exactly the titles of their main topics, including whatever disambiguators they include. This is not based on anything (no policy, guideline, or even reason or thought). Disambiguation exists to resolve a conflict between two or more identical page titles, and we have no other portals that should be at "Portal:Democratic Party". As we are moving toward significantly more restrictive portal creation guidelines, it's extremely unlikely that there will ever be a portal for any other Democratic Party but this one, so disambiguating the title will never be necessary. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the article a move of that nature was rejected exatily one year ago today so if anyone is considering making such a request they should study the failed request to take into account why that request failed in order to creste a proposal that takes these issues into account.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Allergology[edit]

As such not included in given target! Hildeoc (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Polyisobutylene[edit]

Procedural nomination, as this has a RfD tag but apparently never got discussed. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Polyisobutene (which looking at the dates an nominators was likely to include this redirect too). I presume the possible outcomes include retargeting, deleting, and creating a new article. See also: User_talk:Thryduulf#Polyisobutylene_(2) Nabla (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep redirect, as targeted. I've added 3 rcats to the redirect: {{R to anchor}}, {{R with possibilities}}, and {{R with history}}. The appropriateness of these categorizations support keeping the redirect. If an article is fleshed out of its possibilities, it should be decided and written through normal editing and talk page discussion without necessitating an RfD or any form of page deletion.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tater salad[edit]

The phrase "tater salad" isn't used anywhere in the Potato salad article, and I doubt many people are searching for information on potato salad using this colloquial term, so I suggest retargeting to Ron White. Nor should anyone be WP:ASTONISHED to end up at the comedian's bio, based on a Google image search for "tater salad". For the few who might be, we just include a hatnote linking to Potato salad. No incoming mainspace links, so link breaking is not an issue. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

Changing request to delete given that the nickname is capitalized as Tater Salad. So there seems to be no need for this redirect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not something worth mentioning at potato salad and I'd be astonished to land on a comedian's page. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Legacypac. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Commonly used nickname for the comedian, to the point he even has tatersalad.com as his homepage. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Effectively[edit]

This does not seem like the best target for a highly general common adverb. I would retarget to Effectiveness, or, as a second choice, disambiguate. bd2412 T 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Copernicium(IV) fluoride[edit]

I am not sure why this hypothetical copernicium compound redirects to a compound of its homolog mercury, where there is only a very brief mention. Wouldn't the article about the element (specifically Copernicium#Chemical) be a more relevant target? ComplexRational (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. We don't need links at random compounds of transuranium elements unless they have been synthesized or attested in academic literature. -- King of ♠ 10:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Copernicium#Chemical per nom; there's a just-as-valid mention there in the same context, and it should be less surprising not to end up at a different element. ~ Amory (utc) 13:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It can have a theoretical A + B compounds for many many combination that did not existed, or did not have academic paper to cover. Matthew hk (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Amory, we have content there that will serve readers looking for this without the confusion brought about by the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Naxi Yao language[edit]

错误重定向。 Ngguls (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Google translate renders Ngguls's nomination statement as "Error redirection.". Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "𦰡(nuo)"is a rare characters in Chinese. So many people write it as "那"(na), but it's wrong. Ngguls (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Glottolog mention this as an alternative name, so readers are likely to encounter it in the literature and redirects are there to help readers. If the name is incorrect, then the redirect should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} rather than deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (FYI, the nominator's statement means "incorrect redirect") From a quick search, it appears to be a romanization of "那溪瑶", which turns up quite a few sources, however this source lists it as an alternative name for Kam–Sui languages (zh:侗水語支), so I'm not sure if it refers to a broad group or a single language. If anything, I'm fine with deletion unless I'm convinced that I know what it refers to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unclear if this is correct. Wikipedia Redirects are clues to Google on what is correct so Let's remove something that could well be incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage[edit]

Procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Misleading and false, violation of WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Citing article text with sources:
    • "The administration of Nicolás Maduro blamed foreign US sabotage for the outage"
    • "Prosecutor General Tarek William Saab announced an investigation of Guaidó for sabotage"
    • "China had received reports that the power grid had gone down due to a hacking attack"
    • "Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Russia agrees with Maduro that Western sabotage caused the power outage in Venezuela."
    • More reactions with sabotage/attack mentions: President of Bolivia Evo Morales [2], President of Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel [3]
    • Hardly a violation of NPOV. It should be the title of the original article, the event has been named sabotage/attack by several authorities, so a redirect is appropriate. emijrp (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment At most "allegations" should be added to the redirect. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I figured that I should provide examples on how these are allegations and there aren't proofs of it being an "attack" or a "sabotage":
  • "Sources cited by Corpoelec (the state-owned national electricity company) indicated a vegetation fire occurred on three lines of 765 kV between the Gurí Dam and the Malena and San Gerónimo B substations. The fire overheated the lines, triggering load rejection mechanisms that protect the lines connected to the dam. According to the School of Electrical Engineering of the Central University of Venezuela, the momentary loss of power at the Gurí Dam caused the turbines to increase their speed, creating an overload on electrical systems."
  • "Satellite images show that the vegetation fire in the Guri started a day before the blackout."
  • "Engineers and analysts quoted by The Guardian say the cause is underfunding and mismanagement"
  • "Venezuelan energy experts cited by El Pitazo have rejected the theory that the blackout was caused by sabotage, since the area of the Gurí Dam is heavily guarded by members of the Armed Forces, where it operates a special command and the internal security of Corpolec."
  • "These specialists have also pointed out that Gurí was constructed before the Internet existed, does not use the Internet, hence does not allow for hacking."
  • "A risk management consultant cited by El Nacional dismissed the statement by government officials and assured that the design of the hydroelectric plant system does not allow "attacks" of that type."
Quoting governemnt officials and their allies it's very different from quoting details and experts in the area--Jamez42 (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack[edit]

Procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Venezuelan power grid attack. wumbolo ^^^ 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Misleading and false, violation of WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Rationale given above. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Brussels bombing[edit]

More than one bombings occurred in Brussels B dash (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Terrorist activity in Belgium; all notable Brussels bombings are/should be listed there. ComplexRational (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Brussels bombing can be changed to a disambiguation page or redirected to Terrorist activity in Belgium if 2016 Brussels bombings is not its primary topic. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Attack in Brussels. Pinging the participants to that discussion who haven't commented here: @Ivanvector and BDD:. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) I'm of two minds with this one. It points to the most recent event, which you'd think would be the most likely event readers would be searching for, and has hatnotes pointing to the other topics which match this query. On the other hand I don't know if it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so retargeting to the dab page would also work, but would be an extra click for readers looking for this topic who aren't aware of prior incidents. I guess I'm neutral. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. RECENTISM is fine policy theoretically, but is often going to make it more difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. It can be a difficult needle to thread. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, do not retarget to Terrorist activity in Belgium. When our readers type in "Brussels bombing," they are likely to be looking for a specific incident, and it's going to be hard to find on a whole article on terrorist attacks in Belgium, many of which are not bombings and/or did not occur in Brussels. Brussels bombings should be the disambiguation page and Brussels bombing the redirect to it. -- King of ♠ 03:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Draughtsman[edit]

I turned this page into a redirect in 2016, but that has just been reverted to a dab page. The dab created breaks multiple dab page rules: DICDEF and TWODABS; the first entry is not discussed in any article. The first blue link in that entry (drawing) explicitly refers to the second meaning only. There are multiple bluelinks in both entries contrary to MOS:DABENTRY, so if kept needs some cleanup. SpinningSpark 09:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue I have here is not that the meaning does not exist. It is that the page you link explicitly states the term relates to the technical drawing meaning. Wikipedia therefore does not presently have any coverage for the claimed meaning and a dab page is not appropriate under those circumstances. Note also that another editor made this a redirect back in 2012. SpinningSpark 12:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever the result of this discussion, the target or the DAB page should note that 'draughts man' is a piece in the game of draughts. 'Draughtsman' is a plausible misspelling.
It isn't in any WP article that I can find, but 'draughtsman' is also a British English term for someone who draughts (drafts) a legal document such as an Act of Parliament, a contract, or a patent specification. Examples can be found in British law reports. Narky Blert (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Draughtsman is a legitimate spelling for board game piece according to the OED. – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

List of role-playing video games: 2018 to 2019[edit]

The year 2018 has already passed and we're in 2019 right now. Having an article that simply redirects to a "main page" simply makes zero sense. NotCory (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment this matches articles for other pairs of years, e.g. List of role-playing video games: 2016 to 2017 which all do as the title suggests so I'm very surprised by the lack of a list for this pair of years, but there isn't one in history I can find (although it has moved around a bit to some bizarre titles). I'll ping the video games project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
keep - seems like a sensible redirect to me, if there are currently a list for other years. I'm a little surprised also the articles doesn't already exist (which would make this arguement moot.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Human-readable interpretation[edit]

I was very surprised to end up at Barcode from this term as I was expecting an article or section about the plain language summaries of legal licence texts (e.g. Creative Commons licences). The history makes it clear why the terms redirect here - it was originally a stub reading, in its entirety, "The Human Readable Interpretation is the information contained into a linear barcode, which is shown in readable characters under or over this." which was merged rather than deleted. However this information is not in the current version of the barcode article at all, let alone using the phrase "human-readable". I can't help but feel that this should either be a disambiguation page or retargetted somewhere but I haven't currently found any great candidates for either so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep and add to article this should just be a brief paragraph that explains what HRI is. You can support it with documents like [4] [5] [6] AngusWOOF (barksniff)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Human-readable medium OR Delete All(if keeping, at least delete two, we do not need every spelling variant of everything). Why delete? Because human readable *interpretation* would generally mean anything that can be easily interpreted by humans (as opposed to machines and.. hmmm... lawyers? :-) ). Redirectig to barcodes seems to be too specific, as the nomination says. I don't know of any good target in that broader sense... It is somehow about code or encoding?... But those are a little too technical, I suppose. Maybe we need a new article, more... human readable? Deletion might encourage that. - Nabla (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    On further reading the article, retargetting is the best option, this is close enough to the general article I was asking for. So retarget "Human-readable interpretation" delete the other two, as we do not need every spelling variant of everything - Nabla (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget 1, delete 2 & 3 per Nabla; I can't find any better targets from the list at Interpretation.  — Scott talk 15:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment These are all equally valid and equally useful search terms, if there is a good target, so they should either all be deleted or all be retargeted. I oppose split decisions here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Human-readable medium. In particular Human Readable Interpretation should not be deleted, as it is the most common form in which this phrase appears on Google. -- King of ♠ 03:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Duggardesh[edit]

WP:Hoax. No such place/name exists. Looks like the name was inserted in many articles (which has since been cleaned up) and this redirect created from that. Gotitbro (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no recollection of what sources led me to create this redirect in 2012. Looking now, I see possible commercial use by websites but that's it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yngvadottir:, there is *something* about Duggar Desh and Jammu... see: duggardeshnews.com ("Duggar Desh News [...] from the state of Jammu & Kashmir"), but beats me to know if it is a valid redirect or not. - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Journal of Natural Medicine[edit]

Bad target: Simon Gibbons is just a member of the editorial board, along with several other people. Gibbons isn't any more special than any other members here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

F-86D/F Sabre[edit]

Misnomer/non- existent variants. The F-86D is a separate model from the F-86F, and is covered in a separate article, North American F-86D Sabre, rather than the main F-86 article, North American F-86 Sabre, which covers the F-86F model. BilCat (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I was not able notify the redirect's creator, as User:Ktr101 is globally banned, and his talk page is fully protected. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mayor Pete[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Hallucinations (Angels & Airwaves Song[edit]

Delete. Missing bracket so not a useful redirect. Some edit history though not significant, was originally a very short stub that was swiftly redirected. PC78 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic minority[edit]

Since the former section this was pointing to no longer exists, can anybody provide a suggestion how to properly (i. e. prominently, as per WP:R#PLA) include this redirect lemma into the given target? Hildeoc (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: In this case, it should be taken care that the redirect lemma does occur in the target, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Greatest U.S. Enemy[edit]

Generic term which could mean different countries, perhaps even different ideologies at different times in history. Even at the current moment in history, whether this term would be identified as N.K. is dubious (China? Russia? Iran?). Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete: Subjective, unencyclopedic and could easily change. Geolodus (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Opinionated, unencyclopedic, and as Geolodus said: It can easily change. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Russia, Soviet Union, North Vietnam, Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Empire, Iran, China and Mexico at least probably have or have had claim to this title at some point, and that's just counting countries - drugs, communism, Native Americans, obesity, illegal immigrants, climate change, etc. could all have had the term applied to them at various points by various people too (many controversially), and then you have the various people named Public Enemy No. 1. A list of people, places and things considered by some to be the greatest enemy of the United States at some point would be significantly unwieldy and tricky to define let alone maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Main namespace[edit]

Delete We don't have any similar cross-namespace redirects for any other namespaces, and anyone who knows what a namespace is will know how to get where they want without these redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • But the intended users of these redirects, I'd assume, are not people who already know what the main mainspace is, but people who don't. A random newbie who encounters this term on a talk page or in an edit summary might not even know it's wikijargon rather than some general technical concept. – Uanfala (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Main namespace, Keep or retarget Portal namespace to match. One of the main reasons for keeping some cross-namespace redirects is for the benefit of those people who have not yet learned about what namespaces are and I agree with Uanfala that this is the most likely group of people who will use these redirects. There isn't any encyclopaedic topic they are in the way of or could be confused with, so the information page about namespaces is clearly exactly what someone using "main namespace" is going to be most helped by. I think (but am less certain) that that page will also be most helpful for those searching for "portal namespace" but deletion certainly is not the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete If they are usefull, why aren't they used...? Anyone who would link to it, most likely uses wp:Namespace instead, if they think it needs clarifying. Also, if you do not know what "main namespace" is and you search for it, you'll quickly find out Namespace which links to wp:Namespace. - Nabla (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nabla; not a useful XNR. The few uses of it for which it was actually intended were broken in January 2011 when someone being "helpful" redirected it to an article. They were indeffed a week later and the damage was never fixed, which is presumably why the redirect was forgotten.  — Scott talk 14:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nabla: It's useful for people searching, having seen or heard the terms, not necessarily following links. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nergling[edit]

This seems to be a misspelling of the name of the henchmen for a minor villain in this series. I don't see why this exists. Paper Luigi TC 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Wikipedia:In Memoriam or something along those lines may be an appropriate interproject redirect, but a page in the mainspace is not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to meta (possibly after a move to project space, I'm in two minds about that). There was a September 11 Wiki hosted by the WMF, but was made read only in 2006, moved (at some point) to a non-WMF site and is now offline. There is a suite of (mostly historical) pages on meta - see m:Sep11wiki - but they are not easy to find so soft redirects from en.wp would be good if there is no complete list of former WMF projects anywhere in mainspace (I've not found any). Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete due to a lack of mention. Given this is a mainspace redirect, I do not support retargeting to any other namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I changed the target of Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11 from Wikimedia Foundation (where it is not mentioned) to meta:In Memoriam which redirects to meta:Sep11wiki (where it is mentioned). AnomieBOT III then changed the redirect to a soft redirect before another editor added a short pages monitor long comment. @Godsy: then reverted my edit with comment "Plain Template:Soft redirect is not used in the mainspace. Additionally, a cross namespace redirect is not appropriate in this case." I can't see why the first statement is true—neither {{Soft redirect}} instructions nor Wikipedia:Soft redirect say don't use it in mainspace—but if it is then didn't the bot get it wrong? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Rat creature[edit]

retarget to rat. "Rat creatures" are frequently found in fiction and other topics, and is not restricted to the comic book "Bone". [7][8] 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • restore disambiguation page as there are several uses of "rat creature(s)" not listed at rat or rat (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The page has just been deleted by Fastily. Would they mind restoring it? – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I've made a request at WP:REFUND for this to be restored - the G7 criterion used to delete the page does not apply when someone has objected to deletion (as I have done above). Fastily's user talk page very strongly indicates that they are not interested in discussing their deletions, directing people to WP:REFUND. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to rat (disambiguation). Let's not reinvent the wheel. Otherwise, I concur with Thryduulf. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rat per nom. The general topic is more or less covered by Rat#Fiction, and the entries that Thryduulf refers to are simply examples of fictional creatures who are rats. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, if as its own article (per Thryduulf), OR delete, as anyone looking for "rat creatue" will easily find "rat", redirecting is mostly useless. - Nabla (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Angels - Australia)[edit]

Delete all. Missing brackets so not useful redirects. All have some history due to a now-blocked user either creating them or using them as duplicate articles, but it doesn't appear to be the case that any of this content was merged so they are not required for attribution. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WOOD[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork. This is a relatively important essay. It'd be a better use of the shortcut than an inactive project page. –MJLTalk 03:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget but add a hatnote at the target. We should always be very cautious about retargetting shortcuts as this has the potential to massively disrupt old discussions and new discussions where people add links intended for the original target without knowing it has changed - leading to confusion (and sometimes worse). However in this case there are very few links that would be broken and an inactive project is unlikely to gather new incomming links, especially as the current target hasn't advertised this (or any other) shortcut since at least 2014 (I haven't looked earlier). The redirect did get 26 hits last year, so it's not totally unsused, and while we don't know that those people were looking for the Woodworking project it's possible so there should be a hatnote link to it from the new target so they can get there if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, while I agree we should be careful with these sort of things, I found only a single instance this shortcut was used. I am not sure we would necessarily need a hatnote for this sort of thing, but I leave that up to you. I know that personally I was one of those people who typed WP:WOOD into the search bar, yet I was expecting Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork per my nomination. –MJLTalk 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    When a shortcut has had the same target for over a decade then it deserves a hatnote. The single link is why I'm supporting the retargetting not suggesting a hatnote at the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gotcha, then I would say then that I agree. –MJLTalk 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork already has among its shortcuts WP:Woodwork (and I think WP:WOODWORK in all caps should be created). "WOOD" is not so obvious a shortcut for an essay about alternatives to deletion that it is warranted to capture it from its longtime target. --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should WP:WOOD be retargeted to When in doubt? (Hatnote included)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJLTalk 03:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

File:Polyiamond cartoon.png[edit]

Recent creation , practically unused ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.[edit]

Delete Don't think the full stop is necessary or helpful for this or any other redirect that is a complete sentence. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep: Changed my mind; the redirect is apparently from a page move, and could thus potentially be useful. Geolodus (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

All international sports events held in São Paulo[edit]

Delete Section does not exist, and target article would not include "All" if it did exist. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Omicron Delta Kappa logo.png[edit]

Unused, recent creation, file was renamed to avoid a naming conflict with other media. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

File:KOF94gameplay.png[edit]

Recently created, Not in use in mainspace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ann Shea[edit]

Was redirected to a PBS station back in 2007 without explanation. Looked back in history and couldn't find any reference to an individual by that name associated with this particular station. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would NOT regard as "minor" an actress who appeared in such well-known films and TV series as Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), ER (1994) and Passed Away (1992). Anyway, what's the point of reverting back to a link that has nothing to do with this person? It would be better to just mark the page for deletion. Rossen4

Rigani[edit]

Origanum onites in Greek is Ellinikí rίgani (Greek oregano), not just Rigani. The word "Rigani" and related "rίgani " should either redirect to the plant in general : oregano, or the related surname that was derived from the plant : Rigano. --Matthew hk (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW the article oregano claimed the Greek word was ὀρίγανον, chopping the ὀ in the front and ον at the back would became ρίγανη that was appeared in the wiki article Origanum onites. Matthew hk (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget Rigani to Oregano#Taxonomy. I'm finding a few uses of this online with the meaning "Greek oregano", Greek Oregano redirects to Oregano#Taxonomy, where that term is mentioned although "Rigani" isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Rίgani - mixed scripts are almost never useful and this (with a Greek second letter and Latin for the others) is not an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, i did not notice it was Greek diacritics. The correct one Rígani was not yet created and may be not worth to create it as redirect. Matthew hk (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPBT[edit]

Effectively Unused meaningless shortcut clutter Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Apparently, the target project (or one of its predecessors) was called Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, so the shortcut makes sense. Are there any other possible uses for this shortcut? – Uanfala (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the page view stats show that this is being used, and perceived "clutter" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE, since the connection between the initialism and the target is completely unclear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I was going to close this but got distracted and went and participated at DRV for a bit. When I got back, the above comment had been added. At this point, I am loathe to either close or relist as I feel somewhat INVOLVED, feeling vaguely committed to my prior read, but I felt I should state that. ~ Amory (utc) 14:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Romantic (architecture)[edit]

Not sure. We haven't Romantic architecture, and the mentions in the article are all about Gothic architecture. Perhaps WP:REDLINK, perhaps redirect to Gothic. We have Category:National Romantic style architecture, and obviously "Romantic architecture" is a common name, but nothing quite hits the nail on the thumb. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure what the problem is. "Romantic" is the adjective for the form of architecture known as "Romanticism" (see e.g. Curl). Bermicourt (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the mentions in the target are all for Gothic architecture and Gothic Revival architecture. If that is synonymous with Romantic architecture we should say so: but there is no good wrongfooting people looking for Romantic architecture to find the only content is about Gothic architecture. i.e. WP:RFD#D2. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete Given that this term is used for widely divergent styles, this is, at best, an ambiguity. If a term has no single meaning, a single redirect is a very bad thing. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambig - it seems that this is referring to several different things with none of them being primary - exactly why disambiguation pages were invented. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK until an article on this topic can be created, presumably at Romantic architecture. Also note that per WP:INCOMPDAB, disambiguating at this title is not an acceptable solution. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bassena[edit]

This was originally a short article describing a Viennese residence of a type often known in English as a bedsit. It isn't an English word, it's German. Someone then redirected this title to Bedsit. But, first, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which includes this not being a translation dictionary. Second, as a redirect, WP:FORRED applies. Third, the translation is wrong anyway. A bassena isn't a living space, it's a community spigot shared in such a space by residents without in-unit drinking water. See de:Bassena. Largoplazo (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore article. If a bold redirection is wrong then it should be undone. If there are problems with the article then that should be addressed in the usual manner or nominated for prod/AfD where the content can be assessed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore article per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Yes, it would be nice to have an article on the concept, but the WP:DICDEF in this history is not it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: RfD is not the place to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted, if you think it is just a dicdef and that deleting is better than improving then that is an argument you should be making at AfD after restoration. AfD is where those editors who are experienced in judging things like this, and where those who are good at and interested in expanding such articles where that is possible will see it and give it a fair hearing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I don't like wasting time with additional discussions if I feel it unnecessary, which I do here. It's been a redirect for a decade and a half, and an article for about a week, so it's fair to treat it as a redirect in this instance. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not share your view that such a discussion would be unnecessary or a waste of time. RfD is not the the place to evaluate content that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria because it is not set up to evaluate content any more than AfD is a correct venue to discuss redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
        • It's a good thing we are discussing a redirect then. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ohio Star[edit]

This is an odd case. The redirect points to Record-Courier (Ohio), which currently makes no mention of Ohio Star, and under redirect guidelines redirect shouldn't exist for that reason. Anyone typing in Ohio Star and landing at Record-Courier will have no idea why they're on that page.

After some digging I found a US Library of Congress historical listing for Ohio Star. It says the Ohio Star was a newspaper that existed from 1830 to 1854. It then explains a complicated history of many changes in ownership and name, including official status as an organ of various political parties. There doesn't appear to even be a list of the various names over the years. Finally, it says "In its current incarnation, it is known as the Record-Courier". The Record-Courier came into existence in 1961.[9]

The newspaper Ohio Star ceased to exist 165 years ago, with a 107 gap before the Record-Courier was established in 1961. Any connection between the two is tenuous in the extreme. Under normal circumstances I might add some mention of Ohio Star to the Record-Courier article and leave the redirect in place. However this is not a normal circumstance.

Recently a campaign financing org and political action committees (PACs) set up a bunch of clone websites each claiming to be a local newspaper, with largely clone content, each claiming to be the Most reliable local newspaper for their region, despite lacking any actual newspaper. See Snopes item and story at Arstechnica. In the modern US political environment, the theory is that local newspapers are considered more trustworthy. So naturally websites for fake local newspapers were set up as a cover for pushing campaign propaganda. The clone websites largely carry the same content, and that content is padded out with international coverage syndicated from the Daily Mail (which is explicitly banned as an unreliable source on Wikipedia). One of these fake-local-newspaper websites claims the name The Ohio Star.

The old Ohio Star newspaper ceased to exist 165 years ago, and has only the most tenuous connection to the Record-Courier. I see little chance that readers are obtaining any meaningful value from this redirect. On the other hand I see great potential for harm in this redirect, in that anyone typing in "Ohio Star" is almost certainly doing so in relation to the modern fake-newspaper website. Sending that user to the Record-Courier article will almost certainly confuse them, and even worse they could interpret our article as documenting the existence of a modern day genuine-newspaper called The Ohio Star. There is no such newspaper.

I believe readers will be best served simply by deleting this confusing redirect. Alsee (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more a case of the Record-Courier article needing expansion than it being incorrect, especially the history. The Record-Courier counts the Ohio Star's establishment as its founding year and the histories I've read do as well. 1961 is simply the year the paper was fully merged and was no longer printed in two separate forms (one for Kent, one for Ravenna). The two had been effectively merged as a single entity since the 1930s. The Library of Congress page you linked to shows the succession of newspaper names, going from the Star to the Democrat, Republican-Democrat, Republican, the Evening Record, and eventually the Record-Courier (after a merge of the Ravenna Evening Record and the Kent Courier-Tribune). If anything, the redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page if there is concern about this "new age" Ohio Star that now exists. The 19th century Ohio Star comes up in Ohio history fairly regularly since it was one of the major papers of the old Western Reserve, plus it shows up consistently in the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement which was headquartered nearby in the 1830s. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
JonRidinger you can't make a disambiguation page when there is only a single article. Alsee (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It could be with links to the Record-Courier article and the fake news website article. "The Ohio Star could refer to two news sources..." Again, if your concern that many are looking for the "fake news" website and mine that historians are looking for the 19th century newspaper, it seems like that would make the most sense since both topics are low on the notability scale, especially considering the website is less than 2 years old. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until someone establishes a CLEAR and DIRECT connection to the Record-Courier, and being at one end of a century-old chain doesn't cut it. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; too tenuous and possibility of harm.  — Scott talk 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 14[edit]

29 Years (film)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep.

Citigold[edit]

Delete As we have determined previously, redirects from multiple non-notable products or business units to their parent company will certainly get WP:COSTLY UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The infobox was incorrect and I corrected it: N.A. stands for "National Association," not "North America". UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I see that now. One other thing I want to point out is the article mentions that Citibank chartered a South Dakota subsidiary to take advantage of new laws.... It appears the subsidiary is named "Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.", but I'm debating whether or not it's a plausible redirect. I'm going neutral for now. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bulk nomination + split decision by the one participant = relist for more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the redirects, but is RfD the appropriate venue to deal with what would effectively be deletion of redirected former articles? Or should they be restored and taken to AfD? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Paul 012: Generally articles that were redirected boldly or after a discussion that did not lead to a consensus to redirect should not be deleted at RfD but should be restored without prejudice to prod (if eligible) or AfD, unless the restored article would be speedily deleted. Retargetting such a redirect at RfD is usually regarded as fine. I've not looked at these redirects specifically yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ragnar Larsson[edit]

A redirect to a DAB page which includes no-one called Ragnar. (FWIW, there's no-one called Ragnar Larsson with an article in Swedish WP; though there does seem to have been a prewar international footballer; see 1938–39 in Swedish football.) Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

Our Lady of America[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Thomas Liebler[edit]

Not a plausible alternative name for the subject. There is no mention of "Liebler" at the target at all. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That redirect was created in 2007. The history of the Thomas Erastus page shows this text "Erastus, whose surname was Liber, Lieber, or Liebler, was born of poor parents, probably at Baden, Canton of Aargau, Switzerland." at that time, but without citation. This sentence was altered in 2010 and subsequently dropped altogether. There is a source for "Liebler" here. Gil Gamesh (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Claudia Bill-de la Peña[edit]

This redirect needs to be deleted because it is wrong. An article for Claudia Bill-de la Peña was created using the biorgraphical information of Frances Prince. The author apparently was confused by Prince having been a previous mayor of Thousand Oaks while Bill-de la Peña was the current mayor. The article was renamed to Frances Prince, creating the redirect. Since these are two different unrelated people, the redirect is unneeded. Indyguy (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Missing or redundant brackets[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire[edit]

Per the CN tag I can't find a trace of Hazeldean in Wendover parish, there is a place (or at least "Hazeldean Farm") in Chartridge so it could be changed to redirect there but it doesn't appear there should even be content there as it doesn't appear to have even been a settlement. Its not in the Domesday Book and Vision of Britain doesn't have anything on this one. I therefore recommend delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Same with Wendover Marsh which does at first glance appears to exist on Google but that's because of a different place called "Marsh". For Scrubwood there is a wood called "Scrub Wood" but no hamlet (or even farm) appears to exist by "Scrubwood". Unless the wood is covered in the Wendover article (or a more specific article in which a Scrub Wood redirect would be needed) we don't need to keep this redirect either. @Chris j wood: who added the CN tags. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire, there is a cul-de-sac named "Hazeldene" in Wendover [10] but there are also various farms and properties named Hazeldean elsewhere in Buckinghamshire so it's ambiguous, and with no substantial mention at the target article it doesn't seem particuarly useful. Perhaps retarget Scrubwood, Buckinghamshire to Dunsmore, Buckinghamshire per [11], i.e. "until the 1900s, much or all of what is now called Dunsmore was commonly known as Scrubs or Scrubwood". Also delete Wendover Marsh, I can't find any trace of this. PC78 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    I (weakly) agree with the retarget of Scrubwood, Buckinghamshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Tashaun[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep