Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
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 Wikiafripedia: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. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit source | edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit source | 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 Wikiafripedia: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 source | edit]

For further information, see Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
For further information, see Wikiafripedia:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect

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 Wikiafripedia.

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

Reasons for deleting[edit source | 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 Wikiafripedia.
  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.)
  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 Wikiafripedia 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 "WAP:" redirects are in the Wikiafripedia namespace, WAP: being an alias for Wikiafripedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, 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 the 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 source | 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 Wikiafripedia: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.
  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 Wikiafripedia 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 source | edit]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. 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 Wikiafripedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikiafripedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

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

Closing notes[edit source | 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 source | 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.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikiafripedia: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 [[Wikiafripedia: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 source | edit]

November 4[edit source | edit]

Grand Theft Horses[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned on target page. Lordtobi () 08:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Gta horse is perhaps obvious at this point. Despite the good reason PC78 gives, I think Grand Theft Horses should be deleted as unnecessarily confusing for readers. AngusWOOF brings up the almost identically named novel by Greg Neri and I don't trust readers wanting either will be too careful about the "s". I don't think either should have a hatnote, neither Grand theft horse redirects here, for the video game see RDR nor Grand theft horses redirects here, for the similarly named novel see Greg Neri seems particularly encyclopedic or of due weight. Another option would be to retarget it to Greg Neri per AngusWOOF, but generally I don't think it should stay targeted at Red Dead Redemption. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really have a strong opinion about this redirect, but I do very strongly object to the idea that hatnotes need to be somehow encyclopaedic or of due weight. The only criteria for a hatnote should be whether it is likely someone searching for the other topic would arrive at the current page. If Grand Theft Horse and Grand Theft Horses both exist and lead to different pages then the potential for a reader to end up at the wrong target and thus confused seems very clear. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Twelfty[edit source | edit]

Weirdly redirects to the number 120 instead of the article "long hundred". I propose to retarget this to "long hundred". --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Hold Over[edit source | edit]

Unable to find any mention at the target, nor at any of the albums listed by the artist. Unhelpful to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Tobiasz[edit source | edit]

Unlikely typo. The subject was either known as Tobias or Tobiaszoon, not Tobiasz Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I created this because there was a redlink in Dutch ship Gouden Leeuw. Maybe that was a typo. Maybe not. ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Emma Sameth[edit source | edit]

No known connection to this label. A previous mention was removed as it was found that the source to back a claim was unreliable. See also WT:ALBUMS#Concerning LabelsBase. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Curent account balance[edit source | edit]

First, this has a typo in the title. Second, per WAP:XY, this could refer to either day to day personal banking accounts or the current target which involves national economics. Reyk YO! 13:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Castejón–Bilbao railway[edit source | edit]

No indication that the line is known by this name, or that it even passes through Castejón. Delete unless sources demonstrating this connection can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This looks like a case of the article simply being created at the wrong name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move the target article? The article links to es:Ferrocarril Castejón-Bilbao, which appears to be a name for the railway in Spanish. However, all sources I can find from both the Spanish and English articles use Tudela instead of Castejón or Casetas. That, combined with the diagram showing the railway ending at Tudela makes me think that name should be used. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 22:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move article to "Tudela–Bilbao railway" (1st choice) or "Castejón–Bilbao railway" (2nd choice), and keep all redirects with valid destination names. The issue at hand is analogous to a Wikidata:Bonnie and Clyde problem: Like all good passenger railways, the railway was built in stages. Bilbao is a dead-end terminus and also a major destination so it makes sense to be in the name, but you can pick any destination near the other end the railway to be the other representative destination in the railway's name. The candidates are Castejón for the first stop across the Rioja-Navarra border; Tudela for the first major interchange across the Rioja-Navarra border; these two options focus on the history of this railway line's construction. But one can also take Casetas / Zaragoza for the first station and first major interchange where one can branch off to a different railway line, based on modern train service patterns.[1] All of these are valid and unambiguous ways to refer to the railway line so they are all valid redirect titles, but we must pick one article title, so I recommend following the cited sources and use Tudela. Deryck C. 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move and keep redirects exactly per Deryck Chan. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a WAP:INVOLVED relisting to allow the 22 October log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn[edit source | edit]

Delete, this is the incorrect name. The township's name is Yến Lạc. By the time it was created, no one had noticed; that's why it exists until now. Cn5900 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Just found another page with the same issue Cn5900 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Not just that; it is also missing a diacritic on the second letter. Geolodus (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • זָרַח, please look at the name carefully. It is Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn (Yên not Yến, missing a diacritic). If it was Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn, I wouldn't have listed it here for discussion since there's no reason why I should do that. My point here is, we can either delete it or move it to Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn without leaving a redirect. Cn5900 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. These were the titles of the respective articles for 10 years, so there has been a decade for external links to be established. Furthermore, I believe these articles were created from a database, so I believe it to be plausible for someone to search for these articles using the same database Dr. Blofeld used to set up these articles. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as harmful. Redirects without diacritics are useful (and exist), but redirects with incorrect diacritics increase the likelihood of the incorrect title being used in other articles. The harmful risk of these errors outweighs the benefit of preserving the old title. @Cn5900: Can you please take a look here? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. The articles were moved only a week ago, and there's 10 years of being the titles of the articles. Deleting them will break any incoming links from outside wikipedia. However, to reduce the potential of the redirects to interfere in searches (and so to address the concerns of the "delete" comments above), they should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} or a similar template. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    We're entitled, of course, to disagree on the redidrects, but adding a tag does not materially reduce the risk/harm of mis-linking within article text, and therefore does not address my concern (I can't speak for User:Cn5900 and Zerach...). I imagine it would be quite rare for someone to insert a link in article text and then, after seeing that it is blue, to navigate to the redirect page and actually read the R... templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    As I see it, the harm of having redirects from misspelled English words is lower because most of us can spell English pretty well. Vietnamese diacritics are pretty tricky and easy to mess up, and I've never clicked onto a redirect to check whether I'd used an incorrect name. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    There are editors who patrol links to these types of redirects. My point, however, was more about readers: redirects from incorrect names are given less weight by the wikimedia engine that orders the search results and the suggestions in the search box drop-down list. Keeping redirects from moves away from long-term titles is such a well-established part of RfD practice that it's listed right at the top (point 4 of WAP:RFD#KEEP). – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless there's actually a Yên Lạc in Bắc Kạn or a Tân Mỹ in An Giang, just tag them with
  1. REDIRECT Template:Template link

. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete or move to redirect titles with correct diacritics. What persuaded me was that in each of the two titles, one tone mark is correct and the other tone mark is wrong. I think there's a stronger case for keeping if all the tone marks were stripped, but in this case the tone marks are part right and part wrong, making it an unlikely candidate for a useful redirect. For search behaviour, we already have diacritics-stripped redirects which will capture all the cases with incorrect diacritics. Deryck C. 14:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be opposed to moving these redirects. If the redirects with correct diacritics do not exist, they should be created separately without tying their fate to these. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Me and You (Marshmello song)[edit source | edit]

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

Acid storm[edit source | edit]

Too easily confused with acid rain. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The overwhelming primary topic for this is the current target. The next most common use is an EP by Nakadia about which we have no information (the orphaned article contains no discography or similar), which would be worth a hatnote if there was some content to point to. After that come two different EPs, both by artists who don't have articles here. I'm not seeing any actual confusion with acid rain at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The acid storm here is apparently an entity in the Transformers fictional universe. The target article mentions it a couple of times, without however defining it in any way, so readers who would like to find out what it is – the ostensible target audience of this redirect – are left none the wiser. The job should be left to the search engine, especially given the potential for confusion with acid rain. – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirects with "langauge"[edit source | edit]

These are all the 45 redirects that feature the mistyped "langauge". That's quite a plausible typo (I do it all the time), but this very plausibility paradoxically makes the redirects actually harmful. The trouble is, one or another of these 45 redirects will inevitably show up in the search results if you make this typo while looking for any of the 15,000 or so language articles that don't have the corresponding redirect, while the article you are actually looking for will not be there in the results. Say a reader makes this typo when looking for the Hattic language. They'll see a single article in the search results – Hittite language (and it's there because of the redirect Hittite langauge). If the reader is not aware of the fact that Hittite and Hattic are two very different languages, they might be misled into believing that it was in fact Hittite they were looking for. This potential for confusion is tempered somewhat by the "Did you mean ...." text displayed above the search results, but that can be easy to miss and it doesn't work in all cases (just try searching for "Javanese langauge" and see why there'll be no way to get to Javanese language from there).
The solution is to either delete these 45 redirects (which is what I'm proposing), or to undertake to create and maintain similar redirects for each title with "language" in it (there are likely well over 20,000 of these, so that would be a tall order).
A procedural note: this is a preliminary nomination. If it looks like consensus for deletion is likely to emerge, then I ask that the discussion be relisted for another week, so that I can notify the creators, tag the individual redirects, and scrutinise them individually (for incoming links, useful history, etc). – Uanfala (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all (preliminarily), per nom's argumentation above. signed, Rosguill talk 02:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in general. I actually quite like the status quo, because it reflects the instances of when someone made the typo naturally and thought it useful enough to create the {{R from misspelling}} redirect. On the contrary, I would not support a bot creating all possible redirects with this typo. While "langauge" by itself may be plausible, the redirect for Obscure langauge would not be plausible, because that language is not widely searched enough. On the other hand, the English language, for example, is a widely searched language so English langauge should continue to be in place to redirect those searches. -- Tavix (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Per WAP:PANDORA. The existence of these redirects means that many, many more will inevitably be created if someone seeks to duplicate the typo here. Search function should be fine to send people to the right place instead.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Tavix. Can we put this pandorra nonsense to bed please, redirects are created and discussed based on whether they are individually useful or harmful. Whether a hypothetical person may or may not create another redirect (which may or may not be useufl and/or harmful) based on it is completely irrelevant. At least some of these redirects, e.g. English langauge, are clearly very common typos and the redirects serve a very clear and useful purpose. Others may be less so, but without them being examined individually it is not possible to say, and the nominator should have undertaken to do this WAP:BEFORE this nomination and there is also no reason why the creators and users of these redirects should not be notified of this discussion at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Blip[edit source | edit]

There is no mention of "The Blip" at the current target; even if it is the actual name of a plot point of the film, a reader following this redirect will find no useful information. I propose retargeting to the disambiguation page Blip, due to the low utility of the current target and the high possibility that a reader may be looking for some other meaning of this phrase. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The page Blip links to The Blip and says it is "a fictional event in the Marvel Cinematic Universe termed in Spider-Man: Far From Home". I'd say that it could either be redirected to Blip or to Spider-Man: Far From Home#Plot, the latter actually mentions "the Blip", although links to it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd be ok with redirecting to Spider-Man: Far From Home. Based on the fact that The Blip has a higher per-day pageview count than Blip, it may be the case that the Marvel Blip is actually the primary topic here (although a disambiguating hatnote may be in order). signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Blip. I see Rosguill's wp:primarytopic-based reasoning, but I'm not sure the page view count of The Blip establishes the primary topic to be a subtopic of Spider-Man: Far From Home. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 3[edit source | edit]

Neon tubes[edit source | edit]

I feel that these two redirects should point to the same place, but I have no preference to what that should be. Wittylama 22:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete or Retarget both to Neon lighting. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Neon lighting. That article deals with this subject in detail, it has plenty of relevant information on neon tubes. ComplexRational (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with ComplexRational. They should be redirected to a most general article.--Roy17 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Neon lighting per ComplexRational --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Neon lighting per ComplexRational. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

3 quesitons that count[edit source | edit]

Implausible redirect because it's missing a word, uses the numeral 3 instead of spelling the word, and spells "questions" wrong. Nothing links to it and it's not even the result of a page move. Reyk YO! 21:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as implausible and unused (~15 page views per year, and even most of that is probably stolen from 3 Questions That Count, which appears after this one in the Search suggestions). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm[edit source | edit]

No mention of this algorithm in the target page, and no other possible target D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Snow keep I have readded the anchor removed by the OP and added a note regarding the name. According to sources the Anderson–Earle–Goldschmidt–Powers algorithm is an alternative name for what is also known simply as Goldschmidt division, which is already discussed in the article. Either that, or at least related to this. Presumably it is implemented in IBM System 360 Model 91, IBM S/390 as well as in the AMD K7. Since the topic is notable and readers can expect to find an entry in this encyclopedia, it would be a disservice to our readers to not catch the term and redirect it into the division algorithm article. At a later stage and depending on the further development of the division algorithm article one of those redirects could even become an article of its own. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Guangzhou Province[edit source | edit]

Delete. This phrase is plain wrong. No one is supposed to use it. Even if they mix up the city's and the province's pinyin, they would easily find out what they wanna see in the search results. Roy17 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Snow keep.Change redirect target Until we have an article about the province it is perfectly okay to redirect the province to the city. They are related, and redirecting to related topics is one of the main reasons for why we have redirects. See WAP:REDIR. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, the province where Guangzhou is located is not called "Guangzhou Province", it is Guangdong. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this information and the link. Then I change my suggestion from "keep" to "change redirect target" to the existing article Guangdong and to add {{R from misnomer}} to the redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there sources to show that "Guangzhou Province" is a common misnomer for "Guangdong", or is Wikiafripedia the source of this confusion? In the absence of external sources, this would be the equivalent of redirecting Baltimore State to Maryland or Munich State to Bavria, and should be deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Per WAP:R#KEEP point 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", this is one of the types of redirects that should be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Keystone State is a real nickname. This redirect is false. It should not exist at all. Its existence adds more confusion than it helps with searching within wikipedia. Other pairs of cities and provinces/states they are in sharing similar names are not rare in East Asia—Fuzhou, Fujian; Guiyang, Guizhou; Haikou, Hainan; Suzhou, Jiangsu; Taipei, Taiwan—and I believe such cases exist in other parts of the world too, but no such redirect Cityname Province->Provincename should be created in the absence of attested mentions.--Roy17 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that it aids searches. As you said, there are probably many more such pairs, and not all are covered by such a redirect, although some are (as this one). Obviously, someone must have found it useful to create the redirect, so unless it is real junk or is causing problems we should keep it per WAP:R#KEEP item 5. By adding {{R from misnomer}} to the redirect we can ensure that the redirect will not be used for links and will not become part of the exported WAP index, that is, it won't "spread further" in WAP or into the net, it just aids searches.
As can be seen above, I was unaware of the Guangzhou-Guangdong relation, so if I would have been interested in Guangzhou and wanted to learn something about its surrounding, I might have entered "Guangzhou Province" into the search box and would have been happy to have been redirected to Guangdong. So, I would find it rather useful as well for as long as it is suppressed from indexes and is not in the way of another article. Can you elaborate in what way, in your opinion, the redirect causes confusion? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Benefit (if any) is trivial, but a wrong redirect is a source of pollution. Creation was a mistake. The existence of the redirect only helps with a specific feature of wiki—the auto suggestion of the search box. Without the redirect you could still find articles in search results. The redirect itself is the confusion, when for example a user uses visual editor, intends to add a link and types it. The redirect suggests a valid link, but it is in fact a factually false construction that should not appear at all.--Roy17 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
For me, there is an additional consideration. With the redirect, someone searching for "Guangzhou Province" is immediately transported to Guangdong, and could make a reasonable assumption that the two are synonymous. Without the redirect, someone who made the same search would see a Search results page, where Guangzhou would be among the top results (likely first). Upon clicking the article, they would see that the city is located in Guangdong province. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and WAP:RFD#D2. This is a WAP:XY wrong name of multiple things, but not the correct name of anything in Wikiafripedia. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a fellow Cantonese speaker, it is unsurprising that I agree with User:Roy17 about this redirect title being wrong. The discussion between User:Matthiaspaul and Roy above shows that even if we want to have an {{R from incorrect title}}, it is unclear whether we should point it to Guangzhou (city) or Guangdong (province), i.e. IP 59.149's point. It is best to reveal the search results (Special:Search/Guangzhou Province~), which gives enough hint to the reader that Guangzhou isn't a province, and the province that Guangzhou is located in is Guangdong. Deryck C. 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • P.S. There's also the Ecclesiastical Province of Guangzhou (see List of Catholic dioceses in China), but I don't think it's likely that anyone would call this "Guangzhou Province" without further qualification. Deryck C. 13:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Deryck Chan's comment makes me suspect that the correct answer here is disambiguation as we have three things that could be referred to as "Guangzhou Province", none of which are the primary topic. That none of them are correctly called this seems irrelevant if they are actually called this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, reading Deryck's note made me think the same thing. Changing it to a disambiguation page sounds like a feasible (even a good) solution to me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Urdu people[edit source | edit]

Urdu people was an article for a few months back in 2010. It got discarded, and rightfully so: its very topic was entirely WAP:OR as Urdu speakers do not constitute an ethnic or social group. The current target is not good either: Muhajirs are indeed associated with Urdu but the language isn't native to all of them and it isn't a defining charactestic; the majority of native Urdu speakers are in India and so aren't Muhajir anyway. Conceivably, the redirects could be retargeted to Urdu, but they aren't plausible as search terms (Urdu-speaking, Urdu speaker and many other variants already exist), and their very existence misleads in the way it implies the existence of some sort of social group. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget Urdu people and Urdu peoples to Urdu. Delete the others. I don't see them as search terms of any kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per my rationale above. These are commonly used terminologies in Pakistan and would be a valid search term for anyone searching for the subject. Mar4d (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is consensus to retarget Urdu people I'm not seeing consensus regarding the other redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Norman Deek[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned on target page. Lordtobi () 08:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep and tag as {{R without mention}}. Google search shows that this is a supporting character and antagonist in the game so a plausible search term. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. I can't find any other uses of this name so it appears to be sufficiently unambiguous. PC78 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is absolutely no point in directing a reader to an article that doesn't even mention the character. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xezbeth. Ambiguity is not the issue here; it is unhelpful to direct a reader to an article that contains no information about their desired topic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Decent[edit source | edit]

Unused redirect not mentioned at target. Ibadibam (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, the multiple possible meanings of this term make it a poor redirect. Alternatively, soft redirect to Wiktionary. signed, Rosguill talk 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Rossguill Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decency also redirects there. Should it be added to this discussion? --BDD (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Added. Feel the same about it: should be soft redirected to wiktionary. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that the case against Decency is weaker than for decent, as where decent can be a rather all-purpose adjective (e.g. decent food, decent wage), decency IMO does have to refer to moral character. That having been said, it's still not a perfect synonym for morality, so I'm not really opposing a soft redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. I wouldn't want to complicate things here; Ibadibam, as the nominator, do you have a preference as to whether or not Decency should be included in this discussion? --BDD (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I concur with its inclusion, thanks! Ibadibam (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
That said, I also agree that the case against Decency is indeed weaker as it is linked by a number of pages. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Decent. Redirects to wiktionary can be useful for terms that readers are likely to want the dictionary definition of. I don't think readers would be looking for the meaning of an everyday English word. As for Decency, I don't think it should target Morality as it's not a synonym at all. Yes, morality is one aspect of it, but there's aat least one more – propriety. Maybe that can be retargeted to wiktionary? – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If there are any something related to other, you can turn into a DAB page instead of deleting it, GEEZ! 180.183.22.224 (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proffessor Phillips[edit source | edit]

Aside from the misspelling of "professor", there are doubtless many other professors with the surname Phillips so it's unclear why this one should be singled out. Reyk YO! 10:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Note I've added Professor phillips, created by the same editor about 9 months earlier, to this discussion as again there is no obvious reason why this particular professor Phillips is targetted. Professor Phillips (with correct spelling and capitalisation) has never existed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ☑Y I approve. Reyk YO! 11:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as ambiguous/confusing (WAP:RFD#D2). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Professor Phillips if anyone can create the disambig there. ミラP 15:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ATCH[edit source | edit]

No mention in target article. Zero incoming links. Barely any pageviews/traffic. It seems to me that this was only created because someone thought it was a plausible typo of "ACTH", the proper abbreviation for the target article. œ 06:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment 18 page views in the month before nomination and 260 last year is not "barely any". Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    When compared with the average regularly used redirect, yes, it is. I'm expecting at least a few hundred a month. -- œ 16:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Really? My years of experience at RfD shows the even some very clearly useful redirects regularly get less than 10 hits a month - even many articles don't manage multiple hundreds of views a month. e.g. after about 2 minutes I found Newbury by-election, 1993 which got 18 hits October. Newbury by-election, 1922 got just 2 (the 1922 Newbury by-election article only had 7 views that month). Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    You may be right. Admittedly, without doing a proper statistical analysis over many different types of redirects and their uses, I don't really know. ACTH itself however gets a monthly average of 2094, but that is the more likely search term over typing in the entire article name. -- œ 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. As far as I can make out, ATCH is a non-notable musical artist, a non-notable university course (I think) about "architecture critical theory history", a local shortening of Atch Lench (a village in Worcestershire) and a typo for "aitch" among other things as well as a typo for ACTH. None of these uses seems to predominate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be a wrong acronym.--Roy17 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Kid vs. Kat (Season 3)[edit source | edit]

Fake redirect to an episode list, for a show that never had a third season in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot accounts[edit source | edit]

There are many types of "bot accounts". Bots are not exclusive to Twitter, and targeting "bot accounts" to "Twitter bot" does not paint a full picture of bot accounts. Utopes (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, stub it out, wiseguy. Or do I have to do everything around here? -- Kendrick7talk 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Upon review, I've decided a much better target is actually Sockpuppet (Internet). Not that I would be against a stub of some sort. -- Kendrick7talk 04:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bot (a disambiguation page) as Twitter bot, Software agent and Social bot at least could be the intended target. I would be opposed to retargetting this to Sockpuppet (Internet) as while there is overlap between bots and sockpuppets they are distinct concepts. If this is not deleted, the target needs a
  1. REDIRECT Template:Template link

hatnote to Wikiafripedia:Bots (already present at Bot). Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Bot per Thryduulf (or to the more specific section Bot#Computing and technology), it has most of what readers may be searching for without favoring any one type of bot "account". ComplexRational (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I considered that, but that wouldn't show the hatnote to the Wikiafripedia page, which is quite a likely search term I think. I don't object to the section target, it is my clear second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (both). For one, Bot account does not exist. Also, the subjects on Bot and specifically called "bot" and not "bot account(s)", and thus pointing this redirect to Bot is confusing and misleading. Best to delete this redirect to allow the search function of Wikiafripedia to do its job instead of forcing readers to go to a specific page when looking up "bot accounts". Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The former is very easily fixed - and indeed should be created as a redirect to wherever the consensus of this discussion is that Bot accounts should point. As to your second point, what topics could someone searching for "bot account" or "bot accounts" be looking for that are not listed at Bot? Why and how would forcing readers to make several additional clicks (up to 3 or 4, depending on device, navigation method and access level) to reach search results, which may or may not have what they are looking for, be better than the disambiguation page? Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
      • ...Because "Best to delete this redirect to allow the search function of Wikiafripedia to do its job instead of forcing readers to go to a specific page when looking up "bot accounts"", considering that there is no guarantee the reader will be able to find what they are looking for exclusively by what is on the Bot disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You have still yet to identify anything that a reader might be looking for that is not listed at Bot, nor have you explained how unreliable search results (which may take several clicks to get to) are better than a reliable, curated list of the targets that could be wanted. Your quoted comment applies when there is no relevant single article or disambiguation page because the search term is unclear, nebulous or just too generic but not in cases like this when the search term is clear and there is a short disambiguation page that includes all the relevant targets. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
          • There is no guarantee that the page "...includes all the relevant targets..." for the reasons I already stated above. There is always a chance that search results may be unreliable, but that situation is better than forcing a reader to chose possibly inaccurate options from a disambiguation page with a title mismatch. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet bot, a most general article that explains these phrases.--Roy17 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bionic Button[edit source | edit]

Meets WAP:RDELETE criterion 8 as a very obscure synonym for the target article. The creator of the redirect mentioned this clip as the source of the nickname, but I'm not finding any other usages of the nickname through a Google search. Actually, all the top Google results for "Bionic Button" and "The Bionic Button" appear to be about a level of Geometry Dash, so the redirect has the potential to be misleading as well. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I've been watching F1 for 7 years, 5 of those had Button as a driver and I have never heard of this nickname. A google search for name yeilds only youtube videos of people playing Geometry Dash.
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

How a bill becomes a law[edit source | edit]

In its previous incarnation this was a redirect to Legislature, and was deleted four years ago at Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How a bill becomes a law. It has since been recreated, pointing to a U.S.-only target. Other countries have bills and laws too, so this should either be retargeted somewhere better (e.g. Bill (law)#Enactment and after), or deleted per the prior WAP:NOTFAQ consensus. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Bill (law)#Enactment and after per the nominator. WAP:NOTFAQ was misapplied here - where we have encyclopaedia articles that answer the question in the search term we should be actively helping readers find the content they are looking for. To pre-empt those saying searchers should use external search engines, redirects like this are often how those search engines know the target article is relevant. Regarding people not using this exact phrasing - internal and external search engines will both provide this redirect high in the results for similar queries - but only if it exits, they are much less likely to link to the target article without it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with redirecting to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, which answers the question.--Roy17 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite being only 13 percent of the population[edit source | edit]

This is a 4chan meme that's not mentioned at the target (and shouldn't be, since there's no coverage of the meme in reliable sources). It's also unlikely that anyone would search for this long phrase. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There are also many other groups worldwide that represent only 13% of a given population - for example under 6 year olds in at least three different census towns in India, immigrants to Slovenia from other parts of the former Yugoslavia and the proportion of Mexican immigrants to the United Kingdom who are working. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Huangcun Airport[edit source | edit]

While Beijing Daxing International is near Huangcun, it appears to not be the closest airport to Huangcun––that honor would appear to belong to Beijing Nanyuan Airport [2]. At any rate, there's no indication that any one airport is known by this name, therefore I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I see no evidence that the Daxing Airport is referred to as Huangcun Airport in any sources, including Chinese ones, searches only reveal a train station near the airport (and the Beijing–Xiong'an intercity railway line linking the railway station to the airport) and a former airport in Guangzhou built in 1940 - [3]. Perhaps a Huangcun Airport article can be created another time for the one in Guangzhou, but for now the redirect will only cause confusion since it is unlikely anyone will search for the Daxing Airport under the Huangcun name. Hzh (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I saw this my first thought was the 黃村機場 in my home city Canton, Kwangtung, which was a real airfield but disappeared before quite some time ago. I dont seem to find any mentions of this Chinese name of the current target.--Roy17 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks to Hzh, the former airfield in Guangzhou is now mentioned at Guangdong Olympic Stadium (the stadium now occupies the airfield's former site). OTOH if there's no appetite for retargeting there then this should be deleted; neither airport in the vicinity of Huangcun Subdistrict, Beijing [zh] is called Huangcun Airport, so this is just confusing and misleading. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2[edit source | edit]

No Endgame for Spidey[edit source | edit]

The redirect term appears to be a quote that was included on a bluray print of the film, [4]. However, while some attention has been paid to it, it's not mentioned at the target and I doubt it would be DUE to do so, leaving me to doubt this redirect's usefulness. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 1[edit source | edit]

Likely created to match the corresponding archived talk pages, and they conceivably make it easier to get back to the article from each of those pages. The problem is that these redirects are in the article namespace, this namespace does not allow subpages, and so the redirects are treated as any other mainspace redirect (e.g. they turn up in searches or in the search box drop-down list of suggestions). Two procedural notes: 1) I have placed notices of this discussion only on the last seven redirects; 2) if the redirects do get deleted, then the corresponding talk pages should obviously not be tagged with {{old rfd}}. – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Uanfala: Huh, just a few hours ago I came across two redirects like this in the new pages feed—World War III/Archive 1 and World War III/Archive 2. Do you know how widespread this practice is? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Judging by these search results, there appear to be around 130 articles that have this sort of redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Is there a particular reason you've limited your RfD to the 17 redirects listed above? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I've curently nominated those with two-digit archive numbers and all the ones for the article that has the most archives. That's a test sample to test the viability of deletion. I'm not keen on nominating all of them at once, because of the possibility of a WAP:TRAINWRECK, the need to allow individual redirects to be scrutinised by the community (which is difficult if there are too many of them), and to avoid overloading the RfD log page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually don't have a strong opinion on whether redirects like this are a net positive. Being able to go directly from a talk page archive to its parent article is convenient, and I doubt that most of these redirects are causing any damage. I can think of a few cases where they could be detrimental—for instance, if someone is searching "Hispanic/Latino naming dispute" and "Hispanic/Archive 1" pops up in the search bar suggestion list, that could potentially cause some confusion. The main thing that pushes me towards deletion is that there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to how these redirects were created. Why does A Course in Miracles/Archive 08 exist, while A Course in Miracles/Archive 07, A Course in Miracles/Archive 06, etc., do not? Why do we have redirects to articles with relatively inactive talk pages (e.g., Chutney/Archive 1) but not redirects to articles with much more active talk pages (e.g., Mathematics/Archive 1 and United States/Archive 1). IMO, even if the community decides that redirects like this are a net positive (which they may not be), it would be better to start from scratch and create them in a more consistent and logical fashion. For this reason, I am going to say delete all, without prejudice to recreating if consensus to do so emerges in a more general discussion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. In all honesty, for these redirects to be useful, they should target their respective talk pages (archive pages) ... but then, they would be eligible for WAP:R2 speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Retargeting to the archived talk pages would actually defeat the purpose of these redirects. Notice how in Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1, the "Article" tab in the upper left-hand corner is a bluelink? The goal is to be able to get to the American Revolution article by clicking on that tab, rather than having to click back to Talk:American Revolution and then clicking on the article tab. Retargeting American Revolution/Archive 1 to the archive page would take away this shortcut. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Lord Bolingbroke: Regarding "The goal is to be able to get to the American Revolution article by clicking on that tab, rather than having to click back to Talk:American Revolution and then clicking on the article tab." ... for the most part, there is no precedent for this (with the exception of 130 or so mentioned above.) In fact, in most cases, the tab on the top left corner is actually "red" when you go to an archive page. As redirects, the nominated redirects aren't helpful because with their wording with "archive" included, readers would be intending to go directly to the archive page. So as redirects, which is what these are, they are unhelpful and misleading in their current state (targeting their {{ROOTPAGENAME}}s) since they are not alternative names for their target articles, and eligible for WAP:R2 if they target their talk pages. In fact, IMO, there should be a allowance to have these redirects eligible for WAP:G6 speedy deletion. 14:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Steel1943 (talk)
  • Delete all per above - they are not real subpages, and are unneeded --DannyS712 (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How to become a lawyer that screams "Objection!" every time someone says something that is damaging to your case[edit source | edit]

No mention of this phrase at the target article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, even if I did get a bit of a chuckle when I read this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Know Your Meme gives some context. (Yes, I know how unreliable it is.) Anyway, delete as unencyclopedic and implausible. Geolodus (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel like this is probably clear WAP:G3 material, but whatever - it's an obvious delete.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Wizzoh[edit source | edit]

Delete old (2008) cross-namespace redirect from a user page to an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Convert to a soft redirect. The user obviously intended there to be a link from their user page to the Sailor article, but a hard redirect is confusing so the best (and normal) solution is to convert it into a soft redirect. Deletion is not required or warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf or a redirect to their user talk would be okay. --Lenticel (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

List of members of the Italian Senate, 2013–[edit source | edit]

The redirect should be deleted, now it is backward, the legislature ended in 2018. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

God Family Kamikazo[edit source | edit]

This isn't a genuine title, and is instead a literal translation and a shortened nickname of the Japanese title unhelpfully grouped together in a single redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, and given that God Family exists and points to the same target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


November 1[edit source | edit]

Camlann Medievel Vilage[edit source | edit]

Implausible redirect from a page move. Contains two typos. Nothing links here. Reyk YO! 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article was at this title for one minute in 2006. - Eureka Lott 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Alton Vilage, Ontario[edit source | edit]

Firstly, it contains a spelling error of "Village". Second, it's unclear what "Alton" refers to. No mention of it appears in the article. Is it a mis-spelling of Halton? In that case we have two spelling errors. Reyk YO! 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - primarily as there is no mention of it in the article. There is a neighborhood of Alton Village in Burlington but it appears to be a name assigned by developers of the homes in the area. I was unable to find any information about an Alton Village historically that was amalgamated or annexed into Burlington. -- Whpq (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Goonie Tunes[edit source | edit]

Relisting from AfD, rationale was "Goonie Tunes literally does not exist in any shape or form, rendering this redirect completely unnecessary" power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The name does not correspond to an actual film series. Dimadick (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense page created by user indefinitely blocked for vandalism only account. Captainllama (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated above, as Goonie Tunes does not exist whatsoever and is nonsensical. IceWalrus236 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sceichin A Rince[edit source | edit]

Delete as typo of Irish-language name "Sceichín na Rince". Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

General Bank of Canada and DirectCash Bank[edit source | edit]

Inspired by a comment I saw made by both User:Rosguill and User:Wugapodes, I'm proposing to delete this redirect as per point #10 of WAP:R#DELETE. The redirect was created from a non-existent page and currently redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada. There are two problems with this, though, in that in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WAP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks, to encourage article creation and to provide reader context. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. While not a double redirect, per se, it's just not helpful. I've created a soft redirect temporarily, but, at the same time, by letting these redirects for non-existent pages stand, we may be aiding circumventing the new page creation review process in that there would be only a substantial change to an existing page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Added comment Note also that point #6 of WAP:R#DELETE may apply here as well since, although the target is not in a pseudo-namespace, this redirects affects the usability and navigability in a pseudo-namespace Wikiafripedia template for the added point cited above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If the banks are not notable the redirect should be kept. Deleting redirects in favor of red links is only useful if we think the topic is already notable and no one has written the article yet. If it's not notable then we should prefer a redirect with {{R with possibilities}} so that, if it becomes notable, we know to create an article there. This is because, regardless of templates, having a redirect helps readers find the article, helps google take them to the correct page, and makes it easier to link. If there's no correct target, we may get a bunch of slightly different redlinks and wind up with two or three different articles that need merged. A soft redirect just so a template link works is an inconvenience for readers who now have to click to go to helpful content. I don't really care about AfC, and I'm definitely not going to suggest making the encyclopedia less useful just to add needless bureaucracy. If a new editor makes an article from the redirect, it gets put into the new pages feed which is enough of a check. I'd say keep both as regular redirects unless the topics are definitely notable. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, Thanks for the reply. In the former, DirectCash Bank is now an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardtronics, albeit an indirect one, so if that has an article, I'd maybe favour redirecting that there. In the case of General Bank of Canada, it doesn't get a lot of, if any, press coverage, so while it's not notable now, it could be in the future, potentially. I like that {{R with possibilities}} template better. Any way it could appear above the redirect and act as a sort of soft redirect? General Bank of Canada gets an insignificant amount of hits, so for the half dozen or dozen monthly hits it gets, it's not a significant inconvenience.
Wugapodes, {{r to list entry}} with the printworthy tag may also be a better option as well, potentially as a soft-redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I'm very against soft redirects for pointers to content; an unnecessary click is still unnecessary. Would you mind explaining what you think the benefit to readers is? You seem sold on the idea of a soft redirect and maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic to see it. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Well, the thinking is that redlinks would encourage article creation. DirectCash Bank is potentially notable as it does have direct-to-consumer operations. General Bank of Canada just deals in the mortgage and deposit broker space, so has no realistic prospect of notability. It is an non-noteworthy bank. Arguably, these redirects, especially the latter, shouldn't have been created in the first place. I suspect they were created by an editor who direct typed their names into Wikiafripedia and didn't like always hitting a page saying no article exists. My preference would just be for a delete here. Any way I can arm twist you into supporting that here for point # 10? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • BDD, In absence of serious opposition, I propose just to delete them. They are extremely low used and have never been associated with a named article. As cheap as redirects are, they can just as easily be re-added.Doug Mehus (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wugapodes. The entire point of redirect is to get reader to the content they are looking for. Even a list entry can be helpful. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wugapodes and Fiamh. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wugapodes' reasoning makes perfect sense. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Point of Order/Procedural Objection - I wish to note that the above-cited rationale is in direct contravention to the established consensus that established point # 10 of WAP:R#DELETE. The whole point of redlinks is to encourage article creation. If these are notable banks, and, at present, they do not appear to be, we want to encourage articles to be created. If they aren't notable banks, as a matter of long-standing practice, we don't normally create redirects to existing lists for non-notable banks. These redirects were likely added by a single user who likely prefers to directly type the names of banks (notable or not) into his or her web browser's address bar. If we made redirects for every non-notable organization to a list, we'd have a lot more redirects here. There is absolutely no procedural basis for keeping these non-helpful redirects, especially when you consider their extremely low use in the past 12 months (preceding this month when usage would've spiked following these pages' nomination). Doug Mehus (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a reason that a redirect may be nominated for a deletion. It does not say that the redirect must be deleted. In fact, the WAP:R#DELETE states right at the start "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):" (emphasis added). Now skip down to the exceptions and have a look at WAP:RKEEP point 7. -- Whpq (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:WAPAMPHIBIAN[edit source | edit]

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep It has value for how easy it is to use and predictable. (Almost?) all WikiProjects have simple redirects like this for their banners and they are frequently replaced with the proper long form name when bots come by or when editors assess the article. This has clear utility. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have more than once tried to find if a WikiProject existed and failed; only to find it later under a name I hadn't thought of. I would have found a redirect like this helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Unused" is a very weak rationale for shortcut redirects and for template redirects. Even if it weren't obviously useful (which it is, per Koavf and Narky Blert) there wouldn't be any benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikiafripedia:WAPAMPHIBIAN and Wikiafripedia:AMPHIBIAN do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:WAPREPTILES[edit source | edit]

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep It has value for how easy it is to use and predictable. (Almost?) all WikiProjects have simple redirects like this for their banners and they are frequently replaced with the proper long form name when bots come by or when editors assess the article. This has clear utility. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have more than once tried to find if a WikiProject existed and failed, only to find it later under a name I hadn't thought of. I would have found a redirect like this helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above and my comments at #Template:WAPAMPHIBIAN. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikiafripedia:WAPREPTILES and Wikiafripedia:REPTILES do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Herpetology[edit source | edit]

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator(talk) 17:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Matricule[edit source | edit]

It seem matricule is a generic word , not just refer to matricule number of Belgian football. It seem FFF also used that terminology too (see this link [5]). In Italy, they called it matricola .

However, it seem unlikely to create an entry for the word as it would be the function of wiktionary. So? Matthew hk (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Found a partial match in en-wiki. 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard#Registre-Matricule. Matthew hk (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. fr:Matricule is a DAB page with no English equivalent (but with an appalling tangle of links to pages in other languages), and the word certainly refers to things other than the current target. Our readers would be better served by finding nothing at all rather than a link to what may well be the wrong meaning for them.
I note for completeness that wikt:matricule exists. I do not suggest it as a target; I have a marked aversion against soft redirects which wind up outside English Wikiafripedia. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Roots (Eminem album)[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned at target. according to sources, they were rumored albums that turned out to be hoaxes. Delete per (a faulty) WAP:CRYSTALBALL. Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Synthetic Worlds Ltd[edit source | edit]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Formerly a stub article, which got WAP:COPYVIOed and WAP:AFDed; but the AFD process wasn't completed properly, the AFD discussion was never started, and the AFD notice was deleted. Subsequently (in 2006) turned into a redirect to J. Michael Straczynski; recently bot-fixed (for no obvious reason) as a double redirect to point to JMS instead.

The article about J. Michael Straczynski does not mention Synthetic Worlds, so retargetting there would be unhelpful. The company seems to be a small publishing house, see this link, but I can find nothing significant about it. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Normally I'd be recommending reverting to the article content and doing the AfD properly, as RfD isn't a venue for deletion of encyclopaedia articles. However in this case the article would definitely be deleted - indeed it's a borderline WAP:A7 speedy deletion as the only claim in the article is that it is the personal company of J. Michael Straczynski. It's not mentioned in his article and I'm not seeing any significant coverage of it elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I did think of going to AFD; but in view of the state of the original article and of its unusual history, I felt it best to start from the situation as it is now rather than to resuscitate a 14 year old discussion. FWIW, Synthetic Worlds Ltd. is linked in Marjean Holden. Narky Blert (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Heroes: Five Years Gone (film)[edit source | edit]

These appear to be just regular hour-long TV episodes so referring to them as "films" is potentially misleading. PC78 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Ohio[edit source | edit]

Delete. Does not appear to be an alternative title for the episode, nor does it refer to anything else on Wikiafripedia. PC78 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Misleading redirect whose creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Not a very active user (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Tik Tik Tik (2017 film)[edit source | edit]

Did not release in 2017. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The teaser and the soundtrack were both released in 2017, so this is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

IEEE TC[edit source | edit]

Ambiguous and non-standard redirect. Could also refer to several IEEE publications:

This isn't an abbreviation used in the real world, so it should be deleted. Keeping it causes some headaches at WAP:JCW too, so there is a heavier-than-usual maintenance cost associated with keeping it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. A one minute google search finds that the nomination is incorrect - this is used in the real world and, when unqualified, it always refers to the current target, but hatnotes can be used to link to the other articles. Failing that disambiguation is the second best choice. Causing headaches for editors is never a reason to make it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Cratez[edit source | edit]

This group (person?) only did one collaboration with Bonez MC and is mentioned only in small text on the discography page. I think this is better as a red link and should be deleted. The redirect doesn't help the reader find information on The Cratez, and may simply be confusing. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322)[edit source | edit]

I think the disambiguator is one of those WikiData codes. Recommend deleting per WAP:PANDORA, I don't think using strings like this as disambiguators is helpful for readers and will just lead to a lot of useless and hard to maintain redirects. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Anything related to Wikidata identifiers should be speedyable since they mean absolutely nothing outside of Wikidata. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. WAP:PANDORA is nonsense and needs killing as quickly as possible, but this redirect is indeed not useful. I see no reason to speedy delete it though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like the idea of speedying Wikidata disambiguators (and other similar codes). Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary and unhelpful search identifier, especially when used like this as a disambiguator. ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm also in favor of speedying (either with R3 or a new category) to save overhead here, as this type of redirect invariably gets deleted when brought to RfD. There's no reason to have this conversation over and over again. signed, Rosguill talk 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect at Wikiafripedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

MyFursona[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned in target. Site only existed from 2007-2011 and didn't ever seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The target page provides no information about this site, making this redirect confusing and unuseful. Not a very active user (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Haven of Gays[edit source | edit]

I've found no indication that this is a common nickname for the town. gnu57 04:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly created by a vandal account with no constructive edits. signed, Rosguill talk 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as vandalism per Rosguill's findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:π^2/6[edit source | edit]

Unlikely a useful redirect, cross-namespace. 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The page history that associated with the draft, are routine edit. It had no real content and not a relic of page move, so i doubt why it was created as the first place. Matthew hk (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gay Benzino[edit source | edit]

I would have guessed this was some sort of pop-culture reference but have found absolutely no sources for it. Am I missing something, or is this just vandalism? gnu57 03:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possibly created in error: the same editor edited Benzino several times, and also created Ray Benzino, which is at least plausible for Raymond Scott aka Benzino, and which indeed has an Urban Dictionary entry (which is the usual sort of rubbish found there). In any event: not mentioned in target, unhelpful. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lillian Gay[edit source | edit]

This is the maiden name of Mr. Johnson's mother, who does not appear to be a wiki-notable person. I am uncertain whether to retarget to Lillian Gay Berry or to delete. ("Gay" is apparently Prof. Berry's middle name, not a maiden name; her parents also used the surname "Berry", and it doesn't appear she ever married.) Cheers, gnu57 02:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

October 31[edit source | edit]

Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992[edit source | edit]

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

Unidad de Valor Real[edit source | edit]

While these concepts are similar, they are not equivalent: Unidad de Valor Real refers to a Colombian currency [6], whereas Unidade real de valor was Brazilian. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete As Rosguill says the Colombian «Unidad de Valor Real» is not related in any way with the Brazilian «Unidade real de valor». Olea (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2022 Major League Baseball All-Star Game[edit source | edit]

This redirect causes an issue at {{MLBAllStarGame}}: the other games that have not been announced are redlinked except for this one. If someone is wanting to find more information about the 2022 edition, they would not be able to find it at the target list since it is not listed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Gamma Alpha Graduate Scientific Fraterntiy[edit source | edit]

Moved years ago and if I had had the rights I would have moved without leaving redirect. Naraht (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment this was moved in November 2017 to Gamma Alpha Graduate Scientific Fraternity to correct a typo in the final word, and from there I think moved to the current target Gamma Alpha but the move logs seem incomplete or in the wrong place and the history of the correctly spelled version also seems odd to me. There may be other moves too as the edit history of the target goes back to 2006 but I can't believe the typo remained uncorrected for 11 years. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look at this to ensure we don't delete some necessary attribution. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as an implausible search term (we do not need a redirect for every possible typo). I shared Thryduulf's confusion, initially, until I realized that this page was created as a redirect, and the main article was, since the beginning, at the title Gamma Alpha. Therefore, the move history for this page is preserved here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Funk-pop[edit source | edit]

Delete. As discussion in previous statements, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of funk-pop or funk pop in the article and it is WAP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Disco-pop[edit source | edit]

Delete. As discussion in November 2014, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of disco-pop or disco pop in the article and it is WAP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jayden's Cubs[edit source | edit]

No reference to a character named "Jayden" at the target article. PC78 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Heroes / Fables members[edit source | edit]

Delete. Heroes (American TV series) and Fables (comics) are not related. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In His Own Image[edit source | edit]

Apparently this was the title of an unaired pilot that was re-edited as Genesis, but there is no mention of this in the target article. PC78 (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Fahrenheit (TV series)[edit source | edit]

Delete. See also discussion at Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 28#Fahrenheit (season 1). "Fahrenheit" does not appear to be an alternative title for Heroes (American TV series). Not mentioned at all in any of the target articles. PC78 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List of foo episodes[edit source | edit]

Delete. Heavy Rain and Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel are unrelated video games that don't appear to have any connection with Heroes (American TV series). PC78 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Pittsburgh[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned at the target article and Google search draws a blank. Retarget to New Pittsburg though? PC78 (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Project Reborn members[edit source | edit]

Not sure about this one; "Project Reborn" was the title of a Heroes Reborn episode, but it doesn't appear to be an in-universe group with "members". PC78 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Heroes: Origins cast and crew members[edit source | edit]

Delete. No such list exists; Heroes: Origins was cancelled before going into production. In any case the target article is for characters, not cast & crew. PC78 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-Heroes characters[edit source | edit]

Delete. Nonsensical disambiguators. Dubious redirects created by a banned user ostensibly related to Heroes (American TV series), but in this case the characters are from unrelated properties. PC78 (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Heroes characters[edit source | edit]

Delete. Target articles are characters from Heroes (American TV series), but these names are not mentioned there or anywhere else. PC78 (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

🕵️[edit source | edit]

Delete as non-useful emoji redirect, analogous case to Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#💁. Character does not exist in target article. Zerach (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per Emojipedia, the name of this emoji is "Detective" and it targets the article named Detective so this is completely unambiguous. This is not analogous to the linked discussion because it was found there that 💁 was ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per User:Zerach and nom's stated rationale. In no way would I, or arguably anyone, accidentally search Wikiafripedia by emoji. In fact, this could arguably be a strong case for speedy deletion. We may also want to ban the use of emoji redirects the wikiworld. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We are specifically discussing 💁, not emojis in general. Your proposal would require a wider discussion, probably at WT:CSD. I'm not sure why you think emojis would only be searched "accidentally". Emojis are widely available via smartphones, and so is Wikiafripedia. It's easy to type an emoji into Wikiafripedia's search engine and learn what the emoji means (in this case, "detective"), and at the same time one can then learn about detectives by reading that article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I put 🕵️ there not knowing that it also included the Variation Selector. It was a mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait. Is this discussion about 🕵️ or 💁? Because the first one was a mistake. The second one was put there because I thought people were going to search it, so I thought why not make it redirect to Emoji? Pacingpal (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pacingpal: I patrolled both redirects you created, and approved 💁→Emoji because it appears in the article to which it redirects (the redirect deleted in the linked deletion discussion had a different target). This discussion relates to 🕵️, which doesn't appear in the Emoji article so it doesn't make sense to redirect there. Zerach (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      • So what's the problem with it targeting detective, as it does now? -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • This version, 🕵️, has a Variation Selector-16. I put it there by mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Ah, gotcha. Given that it's an invisible character, do you know how I can verify that? -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
            • You can copy and paste it into something that identifies a string’s code points. I confirm that it contains VS16. Note that U+1F575 SLEUTH OR SPY has [:Emoji_Presentation=No:] which means Unicode explicitly recommends using VS16 to make it an emoji. It is therefore appropriate for this redirect to exist. Gorobay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WAP:INVOLVED relist to close an old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So there's a hidden character in this one? It's not just the emoji? --BDD (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It is just the emoji. The redirect’s title consists of two characters: <U+1F575 SLEUTH OR SPY, U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16>. Together, they form a single emoji. Without the second character, Unicode recommends rendering it as a simple dingbat (as in Webdings) instead of an emoji. Gorobay (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. I'm a keep then. I don't think there's ambiguity here. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. Every unicode character outside the private use area should be a blue link if there is a suitable target as they are very useful search terms. There is no question that the current target is the most suitable for this emoji. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Quinto[edit source | edit]

Delete. No such person mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. PC78 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no information in enwiki about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Trade dispute[edit source | edit]

Currently, it redirects to an article about labour strike. But I believe the term "trade dispute" can also be interpreted as a dispute between two or more countries over trade of goods. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per nominator. The first page of google results is almost evenly split between the two meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Trade war. I think these are closer synonyms. We can hatnote to the broader article Labor dispute. A strike is a very specific thing that can occur during a dispute. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Trade war and then hatnote to Labor dispute per BDD. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate the original name of most laws in the UK English-speaking world which deal with industrial conflict are often called "Trade Disputes" acts. Trade dispute as a matter of international trade has become more frequently used following the introduction of GATT and then the WTO. Important to note that a trade war and a trade dispute are quite different things; the former is actually relatively rare, the latter very common. The closest most appropriate link at present would probably be International trade law which has a section on disputes. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree that "a trade war and a trade dispute are quite different things". Perhaps by some specialist definitions, but in general usage, there are going to be many cases like 2019 Japan–South Korea trade dispute where "trade dispute" is used somewhat euphemistically since "trade war" sounds so harsh. That said, I'm second-guessing myself a bit and wondering if disambiguation really is the way to go here. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Other Redskins sports teams[edit source | edit]

Other than what? This redirect is a circular reference to its target, and is thus confusing/misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment this is a {{R from move}}, being the original location of the article and its title for nearly a month. Thryduulf (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WAP:RFD#KEEP No. 3, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. I don't understand the "circular reference" argument.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: The circular reference argument is that we cannot assume what "Redskins" teams the "other" is meant to exclude, and the redirect will most of the time be searched for while the reader is viewing the target of the redirect. In other words, this redirect's wording assumes it knows which "Redskins" team the reader is currently looking up and/or comes to the reader's mind first. For previous precedents, see most of Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20 and Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 21. The only exception to this would be if the redirect was the official/alternate/etc. name of a subject, which it is not; at the present time, most of the entries at Special:PrefixIndex/Other are either the official name of the subject (and thus its a article's title) or an alternative name or spelling (and thus is a redirect.) This redirect is neither of the aforementioned cases, especially considering that it targets a list-like page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I created the page as "Other Redskins sports teams", which soon prompted a discussion that resulted in its move/rename, automatically creating the redirect.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @WriterArtistDC: I don't understand how this is rationale to "keep" the redirect. Could you clarify? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The rational is stated in the redirect after move box: "...This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." While it is not likely that such links were made in this case, it is generally a good policy; pages can be moved without fixing all the links first.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • ...Okay, that's just the default text that appears with transclusions of {{R from move}}. That text will be there even when the leftover redirect is not helpful, such as someone having to revert move vandalism, such as moving "Good article title" back from a title such as "The world dyejugfghhffhzf)57$,". The transclusion of {{R from move}} alone doesn't explain why this redirect is a helpful/useful {{R from move}} that should remain, especially considering that the target article existed there for such a short time, since it has no incoming links in the article namespace, and since it contains the "other" problem I referenced above. In other words, just because a redirect is tagged {{R from move}} doesn't automatically make it immune from deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think this one has the classic "other" problem, in that no sports teams of this name are excluded (ideally—if they are, they should be added). The potential problem here, to my mind, is its unlikeliness as a search term. Having been established, though, it may be in use. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as an unlikely search term (and somewhat confusing... it took me a few seconds to realize that "Other Redskins" was not a proper noun). The article was at this title for less than a month, so the {{R from move}} argument does not carry as much weight in this instance. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Other hallucinogen use disorder[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, the redirect was an article for less than a day prior to being redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Razzcherry[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Section target is nonexistent at present. Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirects containing wiki markup[edit source | edit]

From a nomination statement I made in 2015:

"These redirects contain wiki markup, which has the potential to break the formatting of pages if linked in a page (such as bolding or italics issues.) Due to the technical issues caused by such titles, titles that contain at least two consecutive apostrophes are now restricted by the title creation blacklist. These redirects all have equivalents without wiki markup which lead to their proper targets; so, in effect, these redirects should be deleted. (Also, each of these redirects do not have any transclusions or histories that need to be kept.)"

--- Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Org. React.[edit source | edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retargetted to newly-created correct article.

14th Street Line (Washington)[edit source | edit]

The redirect 14th Street Line (Washington, D.C.) already exists and the "(Washington)" disambiguation is ambiguous. – Daybeers (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as a recently created and ambiguous redirect with no significant incoming links. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This has been around for over 12 years. What else might "14th Street Line (Washington)" refer to? Nothing at the disambiguation page 14th Street Line. There is no general requirement that qualifiers need to themselves be unambiguous; they only need to effectively disambiguate among topics with similar names. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. Useful disambiguation bracket. Deryck C. 11:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD and Deryck Chan. In the unlikely event a 14th Street Line is built in some other place called Washington and neither is primary topic, then this can simply point to 14th Street Line as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation. Until that time though it's a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't see it as ambiguous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 30[edit source | edit]

Eduardo Santos Rodrigues[edit source | edit]

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

Clean gas[edit source | edit]

Not sure about the current target. It seems parallel to clean coal but a google search shows the term most closely associated with natural gas rather than carbon sequestration. It doesn't seem to be a particularly common term and has no incoming links, so it may be worth deleting if no suitable target is found. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You could put in a redirect to Pyrolysis#Liquid_and_gaseous_biofuels or Methane pyrolysis (which redirects to the same target). Read the info there (KALLA), the method mentioned is a sort of carbon capture and storage of the carbon, but done before it is actually burned (it converts it to hydrogen directly, and then the hydrogen (which has no carbon) is burned.

Genetics4good (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Renewable energy which is where Clean energy redirects. Alternatively, consider natural gas if that's the primary topic for clean gas. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What about Biogas? I had a look over Renewable energy to see if we could get more precise, but I don't know if this would exclude other valid topics. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate since there are so many viable targets. feminist (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This DDG search shows that "clean gas" does not have a specific technical meaning. It is simply the plain meanings of "clean" and "gas" used together in various contexts, with some non-notable company names thrown in. It's best for Wikiafripedia to reveal search results. Deryck C. 11:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. When you exclude corporate names and results about cleaning gas appliances (using the search term what is "clean gas" significantly reduces them), this is used as a term meaning variously natural gas (sometimes but not always in contrast to town gas), hydrogen gas (sometimes in the context of having been extracted from natural gas or purer methane), clean energy in the form of a gas and syngas, in addition to the sum of parts meaning of a gas that is clean (with at least two meanings of "clean"). The only one of these targets the internal search engine lists on the first page of results is natural gas - and that in 13th place (excluding this redirect). None of the other targets appear in the first six pages of results so readers (when they get to the search results, sometimes several clicks away from where they arrive) are very clearly not best served by the search engine. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • These are very good reasons to disambiguate. You're probably right that its better than retargeting or deleting. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WAP:SELFPUB[edit source | edit]

Retarget – WAP:SELFPUB goes to "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" (same as WAP:ABOUTSELF), but I feel it should obviously go to the section "Self-published sources" (same as WAP:SELFPUBLISH). Almost all of the incoming links are discussions about a source being self-published, not about information people have published about themselves on social media. As can be seen in the edit history, people went back and forth about this shortcut in 2009. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiipedis[edit source | edit]

Extremely unlikely for both "Wiki" and "pedia" to be seriously misspelled like this. — Searingjet // talk // contribs 14:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't look remotely plausible to me as a misspelling. Basically just nonsense. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can find exactly one other use of this string of text produced by a human, and that's in a post on a Last.fm user profile written in what Google Translate tells me is Indonesian but which it can't decipher most of (I suspect it's in highly abbreviated text message speak or similar). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep with Wikiafripedia being one of our most viewed articles, typos are very likely. 2 typos in one word is unlikely, but still plausible. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment According to this tool its the most viewed page as of time of writing. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the many nonsensical (and deleted) redirects, categories and other useless stuff created by a disruptive, and now blocked, editor. Implausible typo, and even if a user types something like this, they can certainly type it again, and correctly.—J. M. (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Queens College High School[edit source | edit]

Delete. There is no indication in the article of a school with this name. This term with an apostrophe is ambiguous with many others (see Queen's College#Schools), and without an apostrophe is probably an error (unless there's one in Queens NY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. It's very clearly a useful search term for several entries on that list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Darhyl Camper Jr.[edit source | edit]

This producer/songwriter probably deserves an article, having worked with a number of famous artists, has his own category for songwriting. However, he does not deserve a redirect to just one song of the many that are listed at WAP. If anybody can find RS for an article, please (I tried and failed). Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony D. Holmes (Medcial)[edit source | edit]

Implausible redirect-- the (Medcial) bit is both useless and misspelled-- left after a page move. Nothing links here except bot wonk. Reyk YO! 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The article was at this title for exactly three minutes before it was corrected by the author, there is no value in keeping it. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete misspelled disambiguation are rarely helpful. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Module:Video game series reviews 2[edit source | edit]

Sticking a "2" onto the end of a pre-existing title does not create a plausible redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. This page has only one author, user:Alpha Beta Sigma, who created it as a module and then redirected it to the existing one on 5 July 2015. It's probably no longer required, and they haven't edited since 2015, but I've left them a note on their talk page to make sure they have the opportunity to comment here should they wish. This discussion should not be closed early. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a plausible redirect and the underlying content has been abandoned and unused for several years now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Added Template:Video game series reviews 2. Courtesy ping to Thryduulf and Tavix. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pppery and Tavix: And I've added the /doc subpage too. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The template /doc page history makes it clear the purpose was as "Extended version of {{Video game series reviews}}, support sales and Famitsu score cols. Mainly use for Japanese series that are not regular released in western.". The template history makes it clear that this functionality was merged into the main template. Unless we need to keep the pre-merge development versions around for attribution purposes (I don't think we do?), then I stand by my original recommendation to delete this but not speedily. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

JNQXAC9IVRw[edit source | edit]

Per Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 30 Octo–ber 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per WAP:CHEAP. Benjamin (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment at the previous RfD: Per point 8 of WAP:RFD#DELETE, this is a rather obscure search string even though its target is unambiguous, and it will not help anyone except those who search by copying and pasting. I find no evidence that this ID is particularly significant—these IDs are not commonly known or referred to—and I will note that even the most viewed YouTube videos don't have such redirects. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Also note that there were 49 pageviews total in the two years preceding the other RfD, which likely is responsible for the surge in pageviews (i.e. this does not reflect much usage). ComplexRational (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlike the other redirect, this subject is actually a YouTube video, so the YouTube ID is even more relevant. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I really cannot figure out how this would be widely useful. Who would be copy and pasting only the youtube ID of a video into the search bar? I believe that redirects are cheap, but keeping some redirects can open pandora's box to a lot of really useless redirects. I don't think we should encourage youtube IDs as redirects generally, and I don't see how this is very helpful. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per ComplexRational. We don't even keep redirects from Wikidata IDs, so I don't see how this works as anything more than an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lynn Cheney's Controversial Book[edit source | edit]

Reason 3 of WAP:R#DELETE. This redirect title violates basic grammar and spelling rules (it's Lynne Cheney with an E) and WAP:NPOV (possibly WAP:BLP) as well. Anyone looking for info about Lynne Cheney would automatically see this in the search results, drawing disproportionate attention to a minor part of her life. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep while spelling is an issue it is a plausible misspelling, and there are no problems at all with the grammar of this redirect nor is it an NPOV or BLP problem to call a book "controversial" if there has been any controversy about the book. The target article is poorly written but it does seem to indicate that the label is not entirely incorrect. The search results argument is completely irrelevant, as they are only seen by people using some (not all) of the possible ways to find Wikiafripedia content and it is a plausible search term for someone who cannot remember the title of the book. Yes it might draw a little bit more attention to it than otherwise, but it's not a negative part of her life it's just (according to the target article) something she considers to be not her "best work". Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Thryduulf explains it well. There's nothing controversial about calling a book controversial if there is controversy surrounding it. Even if it were non-neutral, WAP:RNPOV requires there be some other reason it's unhelpful, and missing a silent "e" is not sufficient. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 29[edit source | edit]

Yestergay[edit source | edit]

Currently redirects to an unrelated topic. 117 pageviews since 2015, no incoming links. I suppose this could be retargetted to ex-gay or mixed-orientation marriage, but my !vote is for deletion as a little-used neologism. gnu57 22:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was going to second redirecting to Ex-gay, as there is some scholarly coverage of the use of this term as slang in LGBT circles to refer to people who were gay but now engage in heterosexual relationships, but Ex-gay redirects to Ex-gay movement, which would appear to be a distinct concept. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. I've not spotted the scholarly coverage Rosguill has done - everything I'm seeing is vocabulary/slang lists and fiction, contexts in which someone looking it up in Wiktionary rather than Wikiafripedia is possibly more likely, and I don't see anything to support more than a definition, especially as I do agree with Rosguill about Ex-gay and Post-gay is a redlink (that term gets a few uses, but nothing obvious as a target). Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect it's actually used in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season 8 episode 2. Dee: "I think I know what's going on here: this man has been realigned. He's a yestergay." Frank: "What's a yestergay?" comedic definition ensues. A lot of people are of the opinion to delete, and I'm not against that, but I think it's slightly better to point to wiktionary. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Beauty (Demi Lovato song)[edit source | edit]

No mention of a song using the word 'Beauty' at target page, no alternative target revealed by a WAPSearch. Gsearch shows a lyric site that says the song is unreleased. Richhoncho (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged it with the more relevant and specific {{R from song}}. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Module:WikidataCommonscat[edit source | edit]

Implausible redirect (yes, I know I blanked and redirected this in February; I should have TfDed it instead then, but now that it is a redirect, RfD is the proper venue). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiafripedia:AIVU[edit source | edit]

Unused, nonsensical redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • From looking at the page history, this is short for Wikiafripedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Username. - Eureka Lott 05:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the page view stats show 167 hits this year, so it's clearly not unused. There are also some inbound links that would be unnecessarily broken. Shortcuts don't have to be logical for everyone, and as Eureka Lott has explained the origin of this one there is no reason to delete, unless you are proposing reusing it for a different target? Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiafripedia:UFA/BOT[edit source | edit]

Unused shortcut, I don't know that UAA was ever known as UFA, but it certainly hasn't been for at least a decade. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Similar to the one above, this does get some uses (although not as many) and there is no actual problem with this shortcut so deletion will not benefit the project in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiafripedia:AIVU/BOT[edit source | edit]

Unused, nonsensical shortcut. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - stats show this is used, and it's not in the way of anything else so deletion would not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maturana General[edit source | edit]

It's not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. Marcos Segundo Maturana was a general, but it's not clear why "General" is placed at the end in the redirect. More problematically, Marcos Segundo's father, Marcos Maturana, was also a general, possibly leading to confusion. I would lean toward deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment looking for uses of this term is tricky as google is being "helpful" and showing results for "Maturana's general" even when I explicitly exclude that string. Even if the title of this redirect is widely used, "Maturana's general" is a collocation that is always going to be more common. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tongues[edit source | edit]

Propose retargeting to Tongue as the plain meaning. There are a few links that use this already, so I figured I'd get some wider input before making the change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

VANDALISM IN PROGRESS[edit source | edit]

Violates WAP:XNR, page has been shut down long ago funplussmart (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wikiafripedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (the present name for what used to be titled Vandalism in progress). This redirect has existed since 2002 and gets nearly 200 hits a year, so it's much better to point it to the most helpful location than to delete. As for XNR, that's not an absolute and reporting vandalism is something that we want to make accessible to as many people as possible, even those who are not familiar with namespaces, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WAP:XNR and WAP:RCAPS. -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WAP:XNR keep argument 8 and WAP:RKEEP 1 and 4. I think this redirect predates the Wikiafripedia namespace and is older than the requests for adminship process. It was where vandalism was reported to administrators before WAP:AIV existed. You can see an archive of reports at Wikiafripedia:Vandalism in progress/Old alerts. Old redirect from a page important to project history, so it's likely to be targeted by external links and some internal links; keep per WAP:RKEEP #4. It's probably worth keeping the target at RFI; I believe VIP was merged into RFI, and then RFI was shut down; AIV arose as a separate process and so historical links to VIP would be best directed to RFI where the page history explains the moves and discussions relevant to VIP and RFI. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I encourage people citing WAP:XNR to read that page. I've added the part of that essay which my earlier comment is related to and also want to point out the 3rd argument to keep XNRs. To paraphrase, this redirect is an unlikely search term when looking for articles. If someone searches for VANDALISM IN PROGRESS, it's only logical that they are looking for an internal page not for any encyclopedia article. The specific spelling makes it unlikely that it will show up in search results, and that it's such an unlikely string to type into the bar by accident is probably why it was chosen as the title before project space existed. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • If it weren't all caps your argument may have some merit, but the all caps makes it seem like the redirect itself is vandalism when seen in the search bar. Besides we have a rather high bar for redirects from mainspace to project space, and the page Vandalism on Wikiafripedia already has a hatnote that tells users to report vandals to WAP:AIV. funplussmart (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WAP:XNR and WAP:RCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Querfront[edit source | edit]

Neither is this lemma mentioned nor does the linked section exist in the given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Psycho-analysis of walking[edit source | edit]

The target doesn't contain anything about walking in relation to psychoanalysis, nor, as far as I can see, do any other articles. Wilderness therapy and nature therapy are distantly connected topics, but I think we're best off deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Badini[edit source | edit]

Option A: redirect all to Kurmanji#Varieties
Option B: redirect all to Bahdinan
Option C: transform into dab page between a Baloch tribe and a Kurmanji language variant

History of these pages gives some insight, although I have no knowledge or element to be able to judge their notability:

  • Badini was created in 2007 for a Baloch tribe but redirected in 2015 as unsourced, and this tribe is not mentioned on target article. It is mentioned, however, on article Muneer Ahmed Badini, about a Pakistani Baloch politician.
  • Bahdini was created in 2006 and quickly redirected. It said: Bahdini or Badini is a local variation of the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish language special to the Bahdinan (or Badinan) Region of Iraqi Kurdistan. [...] Bahdini is spoken by over a two million Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.
  • Badini Kurdish language was created on 2 October 2019 as a redirect to Kurmanji § Dialect continuum because there is a link there from m:Requests for new languages/Wikiafripedia Badini Kurdish. However, the target section was then heavily rewritten and renamed on 25 October with diff comment Dialect continuum / subdialects renewed because the cited source revised their earlier classification and merged 5 dialects into 3. The sentence "The most distinctive of these is Badînî" is deleted because is no no longer meaningful after the new classifications.
  • Spelling Badhini is also found on article Kurds in Germany (for the Kurdish language).

At first glance I would have a preference for Option A. Place Clichy (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As the person who created the redirect Badini Kurdish language, I need this one, per Option A, to redirect to Kurmanji#Varieties. The important thing with respect to this redirect is that it needs to point directly to a page covering a language. It would not be appropriate for this one to point to either of the other proposed pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(I have no opinion on either of the others.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Badini should be moved to Badini tribe, with the article restored and sent to AfD (I don't think it's notable, but it's been around for so long that it's not appropriate to delete it by RfD). Then Badini should be turned into a dab page listing at least the Kurdish variety and the various people with the surname. I have no opinion on the other nominated redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Air Bud: Aussie Rules[edit source | edit]

Delete. Not sure whether this "film" was a hoax or a genuine rumour, but either way it doesn't exist and the article was deleted at AfD a decade ago. There's no mention of it at the target article or at Air Bud (series) and no good sources that would allow it to be included, so this redirect isn't helping anyone. PC78 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Count Blood Count[edit source | edit]

Redirects to a page that does not reference the subject. The article was turned into a redirect following an AfD which called for a merge. However the target page does not mention the subject and original article is so poorly sourced there is nothing to merge. Also the target article is just a list of stand alones dealing with cartoon characters. Unless sufficient RS coverage can be found to ring the WAP:N bell and restore the original article, I am afraid it has to go. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, which is the outcome I was looking for at AfD. The target article is not suited to any kind of merge and it would not be appropriate to list non-notable entries on that iist, nor is there any value in merely redirecting to a list where the subject isn't even mentioned. If the article is not to be kept and there are no other suitable redirect targets, then deletion is the only viable option left. PC78 (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 95 Business (Lovelock, Nevada)[edit source | edit]

Confusing redirect. U.S. Route 95, U.S. Route 95 in Nevada, and U.S. Route 95 Business all exist. Is it wrong for me to assume that "U.S. Route 95 Business (Lovelock, Nevada)" is a confusing redirect, as it targets Nevada State Route 396? Even by itself, searching for the "lovelock nevada" specification could be considered unlikely, and it is unclear about which would be the target article for the typical searcher. This would require many changes for road redirects, but this caught my eye at AFC/R. Utopes (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete This would be a very plausible search term if there is or was a US Route 95 Business in Lovelock, Nevada but the only current business loop on US Route 95 I can verify from sources that are not Wikiafripedia or mirrors is in Las Vegas. From what I've read it's certainly plausible that there used to be a route with this designation in Lovelock, but I have not found any sources confirming this. This isn't to say the road doesn't or didn't exist, just that I have been unable to verify it. The only things I have learned about it from Wikiafripedia that aren't evident from its title are that (i) it may or may not have some relationship with Nevada State Route 396, US Route 40 and/or Interstate 80 and (ii) it's in Pershing County. Given that neither is verifiable, (i) is not useful at all, and (ii) is trivially discoverable or already known anyway (all of Lovelock is in that county) this is not a useful redirect. I'll happily change my recommendation though if anyone is able to add some verifiable content about the road somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I-80 Business exists in Lovelock (mostly along Nevada SR 396) and US 95 is concurrent with I-80 through Lovelock. I believe that led to one of two lines of thinking with this redirect, both flawed: (1) US 95 Business exists in Lovelock because I-80 Business exists (which is false, as such has never been approved), or (2) US 95 Business in Lovelock would be a plausible search term for I-80 Business in Lovelock (which would be a very specific search term to get to the desired result, thus implausible). A while ago, a user created a bunch of similar redirects (I think via AFC/R), and I don't believe we did away with them. -- LJ  14:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

October 28[edit source | edit]

Indri Animal[edit source | edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete (R3).

Alcatraz success escape attempt[edit source | edit]

Not only is the redirect title ungrammatical and therefore unlikely, it does not appear accurate to call this a "success [sic] escape attempt", as there is no proof that it was successful. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Geolodus (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. StonyBrook (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dual (2017 TV series)[edit source | edit]

Delete. A user (a non-Korean speaker I believe) thought the title of the K-drama reads—or means—"dual", oblivious to the fact that the production company uses the English title Duel (please see the target article). I think people would more likely search "Duel" than "Dual". Thank you. Angga (formerly Angga1061) 09:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Can the Korean 듀얼 be translated either way? PC78 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I found out just now that the user—and thus, this source that is used for the article on one of the drama's leading actors—read the Hangeul title somewhat correctly. As Koreans would pronounce foreign words almost exactly the same way as they are originally pronounced, "듀얼" reads "dual", but it can also read "duel" as the drama's production company suggests (since "dual" and "duel" are pronounced exactly the same). To be honest, I'm not a native Korean speaker myself, so please understand.—Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, a plausible {{R from typo}}. Misspelling "Duel" as "Dual" is not that unlikely. Not a very active user (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as both a plausible typo and a plausible homophone error. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I forbid[edit source | edit]

Delete as confusing. The act of forbidding implies a prohibition, not necessarily a veto. Currently, Forbid redirects to Forbidden, a disambiguation page with links to Wiktionary. However, the declarative (or exclamatory) statement "I forbid" is an unlikely search term (less than 10 page views this year) and has little relevance to the items listed at the disambiguation page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak delete- the first sentence of Veto says that it's literally the latin word for "I forbid", but your point about the low page views and inconsistency with the other similar redirects is pretty convincing. Reyk YO! 15:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. My first instinct was an obvious keep, because this is the literal translation of "veto", and students of Roman history might look there if they've seen it in translation. But the minuscule number of pageviews suggests that it's not a likely search term; I suspect most, if not all of them arise from readers who came across the redirect without any clear expectation of where it would lead. P Aculeius (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Geroge Davis is innocent[edit source | edit]

Implausible typo, as well as somewhat non-neutral title Reyk YO! 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible on the basis of the typo alone. The song title "George Davis Is Innocent" (see George Davis (robber)#Celebrity support) could be an appropriate redirect, but not this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There was a "George Davis is Innocent" campaign, mentioned in the article, so this is a reasonable search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please note the typo in this redirect. While the correctly spelled redirect could be created, we should also consider that someone searching for that phrase could be looking for either the celebrity campaign or the actual song (mentioned at Tell Us the Truth), so it may be best (per WAP:XY) to let the reader decide through Search results. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikiped[edit source | edit]

Forgetting a letter is quite common, but forgetting 2 letters is highly unlikely. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Delete. [Edit, per below comments] The redirect averages eight hits a day, and recently had over 50 hits (maybe a misspelling in a news or social article?). So quite a few readers are using it, and it's possible it may become further used as a shortcut on social media. Nothing is hurt by keeping it, and eight readers a day will learn how to spell the name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It is likely that many of those hits are caused by it hijacking autocomplete. Wikiafripedia is the top search result when you've only typed wikipe, but as soon as you type the d, wikiped takes over that spot. I know I've clicked the wrong autocomplete suggestion in other similar situations. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 19:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced that this redirect helps confused readers, for the word "Wikiafripedia" occurs several times on every article-space page (most visibly under the logo). Anyone who gets that far will either finish typing or have it auto-completed correctly; I'm pretty sure it only receives the hits it does because of autocomplete. As there's no useful function, and keeping it technically makes the correct search harder, I would recommend deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per compelling arguments by nom, Ahecht, and ComplexRational, especially: "keeping it technically makes the correct search harder". -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apparently "Wikiped" is a verb in pop culture, meaning to search something on Wikiafripedia. But then again, Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, and I'm not even sure how often the term "wikiped" is used. Besides that, I have no other comment for the result of this RfC. Utopes (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Fahrenheit (season 1)[edit source | edit]

No idea what this is supposed to be redirected to. Can't find any mention of this anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Xishan National Forest Park[edit source | edit]

Delete Xishan National Forest Park is different to Xihui Park. Xishan National Forest Park is in Beijing and Xihui Park is in Wuxi. SCP-2000 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL(laughing out loud)[edit source | edit]

Delete Disambiguator for this film is both mis-spaced and mis-capitalized. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion specified. Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WAP:RDAB. Malformed redirect, which is a perfectly valid reason. PC78 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unlikely, malformed title that contains 4 errors and treats "laughing out loud" as the expanded form of "LOL" instead of treating "LOL (Laughing Out Loud)" as the work's complete title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete- malformed redirect. It really isn't a plausible search term. Reyk YO! 15:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

OFAHE[edit source | edit]

Delete, Similar to the logic in Wikiafripedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#LOHGBF, no one is going to search for a Wikiafripedia list by its acronym. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, I disagree with above user. I often search by acronym as it speeds searching up. It makes it easier to find what i'm looking for. Makro (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. All three redirects are made-up abbreviations of the list's title. Invented shortcuts for editors' benefit can be appropriate outside of content namespaces or in a pseudo-namespace, where they can be shared with other editors at the destination page via {{Shortcut}}, but not in regular article space. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Made-up acronyms that only mean something to the user who created them. Google search for OFAHE finds nothing related to the series other than this redirect. PC78 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiafripedia:Bookmarklet[edit source | edit]

Delete Not listed as one of the tools on the target page. No inbound links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

October 27[edit source | edit]

Gal Gadot Versano[edit source | edit]

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

The Demented Duo[edit source | edit]

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

Wikiafripedia:Books/... to Books:... redirects[edit source | edit]

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

Josh Murty[edit source | edit]

Presently NN session musician, could be redirected to one of 3 articles he is mentioned; this one, Living Hope (album) and Latina (album). No benefit to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or retarget - Keep or retarget to the most prominent album, as he has performed on these albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to the albums. Performer-to-performance redirects are problematic. A performer can have multiple performances, and it is better to let readers select from Search results instead of arbitrarily deciding that one performance is more significant than others. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election[edit source | edit]

This redirect is WAP:CRYSTAL. There are no sources that say that there is going to be a by-election in Sheffield Hallam. I know that this redirect emerged from a page move but it is still misleading because no sources say that there is going to be a 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a likely search term any more. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No less problematic than the redirected article 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election; with a general election now looming, a by-election in Sheffield Hallam this year is highly unlikely to happen. Would it be better to leave it until the end of the year though? PC78 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thog[edit source | edit]

There is no indication that the name "Thog" primarily refers to the Marvel character. I think Thog (disambiguation) should be moved to Thog, because at it's current state, the redirect is potentially confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Move Thog to Thog (comics) and then move the disambiguation page as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This sounds like an issue for WAP:RM, not RFD. - Eureka Lott 03:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this discussion should probably be at RM but support in principle. PC78 (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

レーディ[edit source | edit]

This is supposed to be the katakana for "Lady", which was this character's original name. It's misspelled though as it should be レディー. In any case it is vague and shouldn't point to this list anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a very active user (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt that someone looking up Pauline would type the katakana for lady (a name the character hasn’t been known by for decades) and even if that was the case the fact that it’s misspelled makes it even less plausible.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Locus Award for Best Horror/Dark Fantasy Novel[edit source | edit]

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

New York's Absolutest[edit source | edit]

Various civil service departments of the City of New York refer to themselves as New York's Boldest, New York's Bravest, New York's Finest, or New York's Strongest. Unlike those terms. this one doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikiafripedia. If it's not used elsewhere, it should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Uttarakhand Cricket Association[edit source | edit]

This page shouldn't be redirected to the article Cricket Association of Uttarakhand since the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is a separate unaffiliated sports organisation and not related to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Also there hasn't been any merger of Uttarakhand Cricket Association into the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Hence I propose the deletion of this redirect. Hemant DabralTalk 13:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no personal familiarity with this subject but if the nom statement is correct then it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the separate organisation notable in its own right? If so then the redirect can be turned back into an article describing it. I notice that there used to be content (describing the CAU), which was all deleted a couple of days after the target was created. Should there be a WAP:HISTMERGE? Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is not a notable, neither a recognised sports organisation to govern the sport of cricket in the state of Uttarakhand. Initially there were four unrecognised cricket organisations in Uttarakhand competing to get official recognition and affiliation of the national level governing body for cricket in India, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI); the four contenders were Cricket Association of Uttarakhand, United Cricket Association, Uttarakhand Cricket Association and Uttaranchal Cricket Association. Out of these the United Cricket Association merged with the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand back in 2017. In August 2014, BCCI decided to grant the affiliation and official recognition to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand to govern the sport of cricket in Uttarakhand, leaving it the sole cricket organisation to officially represent and control the Uttarakhand cricket team in the domestic inter-state cricket tournaments. Therefore, I've proposed the deletion of the redirect page Uttarakhand Cricket Association altogether, since it carries no significance anymore. Check out the related ESPN news article here for the reference backing my rationale for deletion. Hemant DabralTalk 11:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There is mention of UCA (and other rivals organisations) in the history section of the CAU page, so I think this is a valid redirect if there is no content on this page. Maybe amend the redirect to go to that section rather than the top of the page. Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete – It's not a relevant, nor a useful redirect to keep. Its history has already been discussed in the article Cricket Association of Uttarakhand#History. If the need arise, we can recreate the article in future but for now it should be just deleted. Hemant DabralTalk 04:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mia's Index of Anthro Stories[edit source | edit]

None of these are mentioned in the target article. As they're all the names of websites or web forums, these redirects seem like they were created promotionally. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The redirects were created because they are furry websites mentioned at the time - i.e. a decade ago - in the relevant section of the article, which were not in and of themselves notable enough for a full article (or at least had not had one created), but were significant enough to mention, and for people to reasonably search for. They may not be mentioned there now because content has been removed from the article in question - just as was the case with list of furry conventions. A big part of the goal with such redirects is to reduce the number of articles created. They do not in and of themselves have "a promotional effect". Conversely, if you don't have something there, it's very tempting to use the "create this article" link. As far as the sites go, ArtSpots closed in 2012 (to some consternation from users), FurBid was shuttered in 2015 (arguably had become less relevant than it was before then); Pounced.org was taken down by its owners in March 2018 due to concerns about the controversial sex-trafficking bill known as FOSTA; FurBuy went down just this year for an indeterminate period; Mia's Index of Anthro Stories is still up and was historically important but had been largely superseded by 2005 as fans moved to archive sites rather than their own homepages; Bluefurry, Lulz.net and The Fursuit Database are still going (probably none of those will ever have sufficient refs for a standalone article). GreenReaper (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think that most of them are unlikely to ever have their names hijacked for articles. I see no point in keeping them around if they're not mentioned in the articles because it just creates confusion for the few people who know most of these sites' names. Worst case it'll cause them to add the sites' names to Furry fandom and clutter it up with listcruft or trivia about said sites. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Only the first of these redirects has been tagged. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @PC78: I was trying to tag them all, but it kept throwing up an error so I gave up. Twinkle needs an easier way to do multi noms. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Can also be done manually. ;) PC78 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The target page provides no information about these websites, making these redirects useless for readers. Not a very active user (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nightcrawl[edit source | edit]

Delete. After searching it seems this term does not have a main topic or obvious target. It does not seem to refer commonly to "yobai" or any of the Nightcrawler media. There is also a song called Nightcrawl recorded by apparently NN group Odd Couple. Zerach (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Which album is Odd Couple's song on? Not even the German article mentions this. I guess for now I'll just redirect it to the Nightcrawler disambiguation page. Apparently when used as a verb it can also refer to photographers who drive around at night looking for photos, Nightcrawler (film) being named after it. Olivia comet (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Olivia comet: It's a Pressure to Meet You (Discogs page).
OK, let's redirect to "Nightcrawler" for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: enwiki has nothing about "nightcrawl". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Except, didn't you add the translation to the article? It's a stretch, perhaps, but what's wrong with pointing this there? ~ Amory (utc) 11:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I copyedited it to change the style: it was added by @Moscow Connection:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Space cruiser[edit source | edit]

Previously deleted redirect. I doubt that it is very useful as "space cruiser " is an ambiguous term best dealt with by search result. Zerach (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, but it's commonly used in science fiction.--Noah Tall (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example of a space cruiser from that context. --Noah Tall (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Black Falcon, List of fictional spacecraft works. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of fictional spacecraft per Black Falcon. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sympathetic to the retarget thoughts, but unless I'm mistaken, there's no specific "space cruiser" in that list, but rather just a few vehicles in "space" that are called "cruisers." That list is for specific, named ships from fiction, and this is just too generic. ~ Amory (utc) 11:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ngân Sơn (town)[edit source | edit]

Delete, these were obviously created by mistake, maybe because the author didn't check the source carefully.

  • In Vietnam, the only current geographical location named Ngân Sơn is the district of Ngân Sơn. The township of Nà Phặc, though located in this district, has never been named 'Ngân Sơn', and it has never been the capital of Ngân Sơn District either. This redirect will cause misunderstanding.
  • Another redirect that would cause misunderstanding is Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh: first, this case about half diacritic/diacriticless has been previously discussed in another RfD; second, it can either refer to Hòa Bình, Bạc Liêu (Hòa Bình township in Hòa Bình District) or Hòa Bình city (Hòa Bình city in Hòa Bình Province).
  • The rest are typo errors. The fourth one, Phong lạc, is clearly unacceptable, since the first letters of names must be capitalized.
  • Lương Thế Trân is not only the name of that commune, but is also a name of a historical figure (one which the commune was named after). So it's important that this named is spelled correctly

153.18.172.42 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Toad worship (Chinese internet subculture)[edit source | edit]

This is a technical request on behalf of Wei4Green, who requested a move at WAP:RMTM (diff) and for the redirect to be deleted; I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion. Sceptre (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you User:Sceptre. I actually want to keep that page because a deleted redirect may add more data to the Wikiafripedia database (WAP:CHEAP). [[User:Wei4Green]] · 唯绿远大 04:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey, @Sceptre, could you please explain the recent series of page moves that led to the current configuration? I can't make heads or tails of the article history. - Eureka Lott 16:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed that. I expected to see some page history on a redirect, and found none. Was there a WAP:HISTMERGE involved, too? - Eureka Lott 21:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, whatever happened with the moves. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It's one helluva unnecessary disambiguation, though. ~ Amory (utc) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm all for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} when it's a standard disambiguation. Amory puts better than myself, but I don't think this one is plausible. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

October 26[edit source | edit]

List of elevated systems[edit source | edit]

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

Stephensons Landing, Maine[edit source | edit]

Request deletion of this newly created redirect. The target does not cover the topic, and I think further think it probably should not be changed to do so. I notice that the redirect was first set up to redirect to "Pemadumcook Lake" which is presumably among the Pemadumcook Chain of lakes. My guess is that Stephensons Landing is a small current or former community; the current target is about a series of lakes, not about any communities near them. It seems best to have a redlink for Stephensons Landing, Maine, wherever it is mentioned, indicating properly that an article about the topic is wanted, would probably be acceptable. Doncram (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I request deletion for newly created redirects Amgajejus Camps, Maine and Amgajejus Camps, which both redirect to the same Pemadumcook Chain of Lakes topic, which does not cover them. All three redirects were recently created by User:Swampyank. I think that education of that editor (and maybe me too) about when redirects are appropriate may be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the first redirect should be retargeted, to an article where it can/should be mentioned? Per [8], "Stephensons Landing (GNIS FID: 579740) is a populated place located within the Unorganized Territory of Northeast Piscataquis, a minor civil division (MCD) of Piscataquis County." --Doncram (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Stephenson's Landing is a beach on Pemadumcook Lake where the archaeological site was located.Swampyank (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Swampyank, there may be a beach there, but Stephenson's Landing is more likely significant as a populated place. In general in Wikiafripedia we can cover any populated place as Wikiafripedia is a "gazetteer" about them (i.e. it is willing to cover all of them, no matter how minor, unlike Wikiafripedia's guidelines/policies about coverage of schools, or of beaches, say). It would probably be justifiable to have a separate article about this as a populated place. But as I have observed in numerous AFDs about very minor populated places, we don't have to create or keep separate articles for all populated places...they can be covered in higher-level articles, e.g. town- or county-level that list their minor communities. Here I think it is best to cover the topic in the Northeast Piscataquis article about the unincorporated area. It would be natural to cover it there, as just a mention and perhaps coordinates, or allowing for expansion with a few facts such as population. If/when there is too much info about it then it could potentially be split off to a separate article. It is more natural to let this process go on within an article about a larger level populated area and the populated places it includes, than in the article about the chain of lakes, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Savior" (Smallville episode)[edit source | edit]

redirect created as a typo with the convention style of quotation marks. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note Savior (Smallville) was created by Gonnym the same date as this RFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a typo. Many style manuals prescribe quotation marks around episode titles—ours too, though we don't carry it through to article titles. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Having redirects for works (episodes, songs, paintings, books, movies) with the quotations, as well as without, is very WAP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Acid terror[edit source | edit]

I've been looking thorough a few sources now, and I see no evidence that this redirect is a synonym of the target in any form. Most third party results for the redirect are for some sort of subject in Ragnarok Online. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, concur with nom. PC78 (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This is where I'd expect it to go, even if the word choice is a little funny. I will note that terrorism as such isn't mentioned there, and acid attacks aren't inherently terrorist attacks any more than, saying, bombing. There are no other redirects to the article that use "terror" or related words. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hindudesh[edit source | edit]

Not mentioned in the target; I'm not sure this redirect is appropriate. From internet searches, it seems that some Hindu nationalists have argued that this should be used as a name for India [9]. It's not clear, however, that this term is similar enough to Hindustan to justify a redirect there despite the lack of mention. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: -desh means "country" in some Indo-Aryan languages. I don't know if that justifies the existence of these redirects, but it should probably be noted. Geolodus (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rosguill, the term is attested and per Geolodus it is meaningful (c.f. Bangladesh, "The country of Bengal"). It seems to be a synonym or alternative language redirect. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The post fix -stan means land, same meaning -desh has. Crashed greek (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention at Names for India and retarget there, otherwise delete. "Hindudesh" appears (based on what I gather from Google Books and the news article mentioned by the nominator) to be a highly politicised neologism, at least in English; "Hindustan" in contrast is a long-standing term, and one to which the promoters of the term "Hindudesh" seem to object (due to the Islamic associations of the -stan part). That suggests that equating the two terms is a bad idea and that the current target is an inappropriate place to add coverage of this term. Given that the term is not covered anywhere else in Wikiafripedia or even Wiktionary, we have nowhere to send a reader seeking information about this term unless someone adds a section at Names for India. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think retargeting to Names for India is now my preferred choice; even if we don't have any coverage there currently (although I think it would be pretty easy to add some given that we've already found sources), redirecting there is less likely to lead a reader to incorrectly infer that Hindudesh and Hindustan are perfect synonyms in terms of their connotations, while still establishing that it is a name for India/the Indian subcontinent. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There isn't a single use of this on Wikiafripedia right now, so this is really putting the cart before the horse. If the name becomes prominent enough to be used somewhere, then we can talk about a redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Åsgård[edit source | edit]

There is no indication in the article that the place is known as "Åsgård", and it is ambiguous with Reidar Åsgård. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Dabify, this is the Dano-Norwegian name of the place until 1917. See 1910 census. However there are now two Åsskards, the village and the municipality, which makes for a disambiguation I guess. I don't care about the person named Åsgård. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Asgard(City)[edit source | edit]

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

Kaiseri (Colour)[edit source | edit]

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

October 25[edit source | edit]

Lugash[edit source | edit]

No mention of Lugash in target article. Pinging @Izno: who made the redirect. There's also a character named Lugash in the Simpsons for the record. ミラP 23:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No opinion for me. I think this should have been sent to AFD though if deletion is appropriate (which your rationale usually indicates), since the redirect was bold on my part. --Izno (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore article per WAP:BLAR and hatnote to the Simpson's character, which looks to resolve the nominator's concern. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: The article is unsourced and should not be restored. I'd prefer a disambig. ミラP 02:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood you then. I was under the impression that a dab wouldn't work due to it not being mentioned (cf. WAP:DABMENTION). Turns out it's mentioned in several other articles, most notably (AFAICT) The Return of the Pink Panther. I'd support a disambiguation and have drafted one below the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Primitive Korean peninsula language[edit source | edit]

I think that this redirection is incorrect. Kim Bang-han proposed that primitive Korean peninsula language looks like paleoasian language. However, many linguists now believe that peninsular Japonic were formerly spoken in central and southern parts of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, It was hypothesized that Proto-Koreanic language is a kind of paleosiberian languages(=paleoasian language). Sugyoin (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Typically, redirects for titles that don't have their own articles should go to whichever article covers those topics in the most detail. "Primitive Korean peninsula language" looks more like it refers to the ancestor of modern Korean rather than a hypothetical ancestor (cousin?) of modern Japanese that was once spoken on the Korean Peninsula. If you want to create a properly sourced article discussing the topic of early languages speculated to have once been spoken on the Korean Peninsula at the title, you are theoretically free to do so, but RFD is unlikely to help with that process. More likely, people will look at the wording of your proposal and oppose any change to the status quo because of the fact that Paleosiberian languages#Other languages currently appears to be the most appropriate redirect target. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. See a Korean articles in some encyclopedia. "Primitive Korean peninsula language"(원시한반도어) means non-Koreanic languages that was once spoken on the Korean Peninsula. --Sugyoin (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we should not restore it to an article, I think that the best target is Peninsular Japonic. --Sugyoin (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sugyoin: Ah, okay. I see now (now that you used the wording "restore it to an article") that you are not arguing for the redirect to be deleted/retargeted (as most RFDs are) but actually had created an article at that page and now want it restored. That was not at all clear to me up to this point. I suggest you withdraw this suggestion, rework it in your user space to be more clear as to what exactly you are proposing, and then repost it when it is ready. I'd be happy to assist you in doing so, if you'd like? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging Elmidae who merged the content of this former article into the target. If Peninsular Japonic is a better target then any content should be re-merged there. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
My main concern was that the article is too short and weakly sourced to stand on its own, and the content would be more usefully integrated into a larger overview. No objections to merging to Peninsular Japonic instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Koreanic languages. Useful search term and this target has information on the common ancestor of contemporary Koreanic languages. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify Given that there is no scholarly consensus about what language family this belongs to, it doesn't seem like a good idea to point this search term either to Koreanic or Japonic. Paleosiberian languages is a slightly better target since that's just an areal grouping, but not even the most extensive definitions of "Siberia" include the Korean peninsula.59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Red Dead Redemption characters[edit source | edit]

Not such list on the target page. Lordtobi () 08:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both. The former has some history as a largely unsourced fan-crufty list but I don't see any value in keeping it. PC78 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • On second thought, I'm inclined to say restore the article and take to AfD if necessary. List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters also exists and on the face of it appears to be reasonably well sourced, so perhaps there is merit in a separate list for the first game. PC78 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fight (Brooke Candy song)[edit source | edit]

No mention at target, at Brooke Candy discography or any other pages related to the artist. Appears to be a track of a cancelled album, Daddy Issues, which does not have an article. Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unreleased song from a cancelled album, with no suitable target. Not a useful redirect. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Phuoc Tay[edit source | edit]

Delete, redirects are not pointing correctly at intended articles Cn5900 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Reverse moves. You moved these pages to create the current set up. If these moves are not correct, they need to be reversed and a fresh article/dab set up without overwriting previous content. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Phong Hưng was listed twice, and was part of another ongoing RfD that has since closed. It should be considered removed from this discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm baffled by the nomination statement, which implies there are correct articles for these to point to, but that they should nonetheless be deleted. Still, I can't find coverage of the remaining two localities on the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Adwaita (the tortoise)[edit source | edit]

Seems excessive Sun Creator(talk) 17:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In 2011 I created the redirect Adwaita (tortoise) – unaware of the existence of Adwaita (the tortoise) – in preparation of a possible dab page for Adwaita, there also being Adwaita (Vedanta), Adwaita (software) & Adwaita (theme), Adwaita Mallabarman and Advaita Acharya, aka Adwaita Acharya (and possibly other people with a name spelled "Advaita" here but also in some sources "Adwaita"). I don't recall why I did not follow through then, but a dab page might still be in order.  --Lambiam 18:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ホオジロクロガメ[edit source | edit]

Redirect from a foreign language WAP:RFOREIGN Sun Creator(talk) 17:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I've combined these nominations for convenience. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've combined a couple others. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as page creator. These were made when I was unaware of the policy.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 17:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike most WAP:RFOREIGN redirects, these are actually mentioned at the target article. I'm not sure that's appropriate because Wikiafripedia is not a translation dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Guiding hand[edit source | edit]

Unclear meaning, not mentioned at the target article. I found two topics that would at least merit MOS:DABMENTION: an anti-Bill Clinton film, at Arkansas Governor's School#The Guiding Hand, and a Boy Scout painting at Norman Rockwell. Not sure if disambiguation or search results are the way to go. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete search results, I think, are the way to go. There's so many things this could mean that it would be hard to curate a list of things readers might be looking for. Better to give them search results and let them find what it is they want. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Applied Cryptography[edit source | edit]

Only mainspace backlinks are references to the book by Schneier, whereas this unlikely-to-be-used redirect simply targets the broader topic. LFaraone 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Useful search term and obvious subtopic of cryptography. Little used doesn't mean useless. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This one and Practical Cryptography could go to Cryptography, Books on cryptography or Bruce Schneier. So which one? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd say cryptography but I also don't know the topic well. If I typed in "Applied cryptography" and got Bruce Schneier or Books on cryptography then I would be confused. If I got cryptography I would think applied crypto is a subtopic. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Practical Cryptography[edit source | edit]