Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 25

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

January 25

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2025.

Inter-presidency of Donald Trump

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Donald Trump#Between terms (2021–2025). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too many levels of "huh?" going on here to know what is going on, including the double section redirect target and the lack of this term being in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reverted this edit by Lazesusdasiru to retarget the redirect to Donald Trump#Inter-presidency (2021–2025). (My revert was solely to enforce not changing the target during an ongoing RfD and does not reflect whether or not I support or oppose the edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Individual 1

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was support for the delete nomination, however participants also found alternatives to deletion. There was no support for the several alternate targets proposed in the nomination. Hence retargeting to the suggested target that came up: Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2018) § December Jay 💬 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in the target article, and the target section does not exist (anymore). My first consideration was to "refine" to Donald Trump#Mueller investigation since they seems to be what the current target is meant to refer, but the issue of the redirects not being mentioned in the target article still exists. Other options I found were the articles Mueller special counsel investigation and Mueller report, but the redirects do not seem to be mentioned there either. However, this is an alternative name that has several sources ... not sure what the best path is here, but my thoughts are, in order of preference, delete (due to lack of mention), retarget to Donald Trump (remove the section redirect), retarget to Donald Trump#Muller investigation (but it's not mentioned there), or retarget to Mueller special counsel investigation and Mueller report (no mention at either one, my stance is equal on both). Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a commonly-used identifier, and this redirect is only for a single slightly notable use of it. FunIsOptional (talk) (use ping please) 13:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pakistani kalashnikov

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 5#Pakistani kalashnikov

ready mixed

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#ready mixed

Soyjak.party

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wojak#Soyjak or Delete. Been looking into this thing, it's mentioned on my proposed target, and seems more relevant there than here. It's talked about on Twitter and 4chan to some degree from my research, so people might search it here. Possible deletion as the topic appears to be connected to some disruptive editing, the creator of this very redirect, for example. Maybe having nothing (similar to our policy regarding a certain webcomic artist) would be better. Either way I doubt the status quo of this redirect is the best way to go about things. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soyjak.party is an imageboard with its own subculture that is distinct from that of 4chan, Twitter, etc. It is notable and could arguably have its own page. The tendency for a user of that particular imageboard to be the kind of person who engages in disruptive editing, does not change the notability and topicality. It is not more relevant on your proposed target. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

five gallon bucket

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus on whether to delete or restore, hence default to restore since deletion requires an explicit consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

only mentioned in the name of one external link, which i'm honestly not entirely sure isn't spam. five-gallon bucket was an article until 2011, and it surprisingly had some sources, but i think those should be stashed somewhere for later use and the title returned to red as malformed and burgerland-centric, assuming the sources are usable in the first place consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I removed the whole EL section anyway, since it was awful. There's nothing special about this particular size, and these are no more useful search terms than n-gallon, m-liter, etc. buckets. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh, I just noticed that the first one has some history...it claims that a merge happened, but I don't see anything that actually exists at the target. Maybe it did and got removed eventually, but it's long gone if so. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was merged. I have tagged the redirect with {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 14:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and take to AfD (optional) or keep as an R from merge. 5-gallon buckets are likely to be the most common size for buckets, to the point where they might just have icon status. Probs a likely search term too (but it's true that there isn't much there for readers who search it at this time). Had notability enough to exist as an article for 4 years with some references which, even if shoddy, still existed. These are the types of buckets you see at all hardware stores, highly used in street performance and are overall pretty symbolic of many aspects of culture. There was a good chunk at this title prior, and RfD is not the spot to settle the case for inclusion on WP, imo. I think it could stand on its own with some improvement, and/or exist as a section somewhere at the very least with the references.Utopes (talk / cont) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does anyone search for this bucket size specifically? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might tbh, it's a pretty important cultural symbol potentially. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting to be convinced by this argument, but having googled various bucket sizes (forgive me, I have no earthly idea how big a gallon is), I agree that this is The One True Bucket. They even sell them in Canada, a country that is ostensibly on the metric system, as "5-Gal/19-L" buckets. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with options on restore. I'm tempted to create a subst:able template to respond to some of these "not mentioned" noms. The rule is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned and also if it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", with an emphasis on non-English translations (e.g., the Chinese Shuǐ → Water). The rule is not to delete redirects, such as this one, whose connection to the subject is patently obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using "Shui" as an example of a good redirect to water? Utopes (talk / cont) 05:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a "patently obvious connection" isn't necessarily an excuse to keep something if there's no specific info about it in the target. if someone wants info on five gallon buckets so much they're even willing to type two extra words for it (what a hurdle!), they'd likely be disappointed at being redirected to an article that doesn't mention them. which is why i'd prefer if it was instead draftified (yes, draftified, not restored, that pre-blar content is way too yeehaw-centric for something i have at my extremely not murican home), worked into the target, or something else consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

P:

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 10#P:

Texvc

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I removed the mention from the target in Special:Diff/1267682290. The name of the parser that an optional Math extension to the MediaWiki software used six years ago is undue trivia. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're probably right, if it does belong anywhere it's probably in the history section (like, Math support predates the extension system and texvc has multiple academic publications about it). I don't really think RfD is the correct venue to discuss this though; the talk page would've been better. Legoktm (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Violent Pornography

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in order to be consistent with Violent porn and Violent pornography. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dog poop

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. This is not an issue for RfD. If there is a separate article to be written about "dog poop" as distinct from "feces", my suggestion is that you draft it and submit it to WP:AFC. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there should be an article specifically about dog poop rather than redirecting to the page feces (that article is about feces in general). There are standalone articles specifically about the feces of a specific animal, including Human feces, Cow dung, and Manure. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dog Poo is currently its own redirect, leading to List of South Park characters. If we expand the Dog poop redirect to be a full article, i'd recommending retargeting Dog Poo to the new article. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

James logan elementry school

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#James logan elementry school

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The sole delete vote's rationale was based on there not being a mention in the target article. A mention has been added, so I see rough consensus to keep here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Google search gives a bunch of headlines like "Company and Naver Enter Agreement..." and also typos for "never enter", so if this is an actual subunit of the company I cannot find any evidence of it. Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a name of the real website run by Naver. It's a new aggregator. https://m.entertain.naver.com/ Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Emiya Mulzomdao, could you add a sentence to Naver about that? Either way, we should keep this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this confusing, misleading etc redirect. Without a mention this is confusing and misleading and confusing and misleading redirects should be deleted until they are no longer confusing and misleading. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mention was added seefooddiet (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Synthetic music

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 15:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is what most readers would be looking for. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to see it repointed to Synthesizer? Or to Synth-pop? Or to something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Marplan

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Isocarboxazid. There was agreement that the term is ambiguous, and a disambiguation page may be created at Marplan (disambiguation) with the suggested entries from the discussion. Jay 💬 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. Isocarboxazid an antidepressant drug currently being sold under the brand name Marplan seems more appropriate. UndeadAnarchy (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page with the AD as the primary topic also sounds good to me. I didn't know about those other articles. Good catch! UndeadAnarchy|✉ 07:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a list of Orange Islands Gym Leaders at the target. Furthermore "Orange Islands" is not actually mentioned at the target in any capacity, or at least no longer, nor are any of the (presumably) five gym leaders associated with Orange Islands discussed here either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of both #1 and #3?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", with an emphasis on non-English translations (e.g., the Chinese word for water is, but we don't want a redirect created at Shuǐ to point to Water). The rule is not to delete redirects, such as this one, whose connection to the subject is obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Chinese word for water is a good redirect to Water? Utopes (talk / cont) 05:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than following the letter of the law, I'd urge we consider which is more helpful to the reader. Since this isn't mentioned at the target in any capacity, nor is even "orange islands", it is simply baffling for the reader to end up here. So delete per nom. Cremastra (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. none present in the target, all unsourced fancruft pre-blar, all images in the pre-blar content got replaced (which is actually really funny the third time i see it). i'm still of the mind that someone looking for this would want info on those specific characters, but seeing as they're unfortunately unnotable, it's better off leaving them as red links for now consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

🫃🏻

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pregnant man. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pregnant man or pregnancy, consistent with 🫄 and 🫄. LIrala (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Rebecca Scofield

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. Rebecca Scofield was falsely accused of being involved in this crime which is the subject of the article to which it redirects and won a defamation suit over that accusation. She also (appropriately) isn't mentioned (whether by name or otherwise) in the article to which it redirects. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If the false accusation isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article, there is no point in having a redirect. (However, I do not think mentioning her in the article is entirely out of the question, simply because it was a false accusation; even false accusations can be notable, as in the Dreyfuss affair. I have no opinion about the notability in this particular case.) Nø (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nø! Can you clarify what you support? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless she is actually mentioned by name in the article, I support the proposed deletion of the redirect. Nø (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Scofield had no connection to the killings and it is misleading and a serious BLP violation for us to in any way, even inadvertently, suggest that she might have. The only reason to mention her would be if the defamatory and delusional allegations had become so prominent that it became necessary to discuss them in order to refute them, but fortunately, that is not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the name doesn't deserve a mention in the event article, it is at most trivia and should be deleted to avoid speculation as to her association with the events. Jay 💬 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

RStat

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget/delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. On the other hand, there is Berkeley_r-commands#rstat. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding RStat to this nomination since it was mentioned by participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Rstat to Berkely_r-commands#rstat, and delete RStat per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Great Dane (artwork)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Sybilla Mittell Weber. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of any artwork in the target page, though there've been a couple of attempts to shoehorn it in. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sub-section was apparently removed from the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment. Did not know that nom removed the Art sub-section as WP:TRIVIA. Retarget to Sybilla Mittell Weber per IP65, tag as {{R to creator}}. Jay 💬 11:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different artwork. The one that the nom removed started like this: "Great Dane is a 2019 conceptual site-specific performance by British artist Ben Aronson..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Both articles were about different art works, and now one of them has been removed, so retarget is now an option. Jay 💬 07:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Macguide

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Feel free to recreate if a mention were to (re)develop. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Guide" at the target article. Apparently used to be an article about the "MacGuide Magazine" but redirecting a specific magazine name to the general article about the apple community is not going to be helpful for readers who are left without context on why they ended up at the place they did. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with Macguide as suggested above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

122333221

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#122333221

Varoke

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, nor any other article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", such as the title of the article being translated into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. The rule is not to delete redirects whose connection to the subject is obvious.. Have you tried to figure out whether these things should be mentioned in the article? A Reddit post claims that the second is a miniseries for the game. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if your best source is reddit, i think they can be safely deleted consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of aircraft and infantry equipment of the Indian Army

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not include any aircraft, which are listed at List of active Indian military aircraft. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on page history appears to be a redirect created by a page move. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After further investigation, I found this talk thread which explains the whole situation. Therefore changing my vote to Speedy delete under WP:G7, since author stated intent to delete page. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:BRRRRRD

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Wikipedia:BRRRRRD

Stickerless

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Stickerless

1LLL

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: section no longer exists and is unmentioned in the article -1ctinus📝🗨 00:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (as the redirect creator). 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_25&oldid=1277631328"