The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Redundant redirect from an implausible search term. With extremely rare exceptions on the order of "Thriller", a music video would virtually never qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song that it's the music video for, and lyric videos (which absolutely anybody can make and post to YouTube at any time whether it's "official" or not) have an even weaker prospect of independent notability than narrative videos do -- but since Life Speaks to Me is already a redirect to the same place as it is, there's no compelling reason at all why the lyric video would need its own separate redirect distinct from the song's redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is information about a lyric video for "Life Speaks to Me" at the target, even if not much, so someone using this plausible search term is going to find the information we have. I wouldn't recommend routinely creating redirects such as this, but I see no justification for deletion if someone does create them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there enough information at the target for keeping this redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible search term. Wikipedia doesn't have articles or article sections on "lyric videos", which are almost entirely a fan-created YouTube pastime, and categorically non-notable and WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia about which reliable independent sources do not write, so we'll never have articles or sections about them. We have no encyclopedic content about the entire topic of them, other than very brief material at Music video#Lyric videos, which is only in small part about them (the rest of it being about official music videos consisting mostly of lyrics, like the one for "Fall on Me" by R.E.M., which have sometimes been called "lyric videos" before the Internet-meme thing by the same name existsed). Not only does Category:Lyric videos not exist, it was explicitly deleted at CfD when someone tried to create it (and never contained anything but something about one artist, which was itself deleted). In short, for things that are indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic claptrap, we have no reason to have redirects, especially ones that are apt to encourage the creation of more matching but useless redirects. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a redirect is useful, and I've explained above why this one is, then we should keep it. Other similar requests could not be less relevant - if they are good redirects we'll keep them if they're created, if they aren't then we'll delete them if nominated. In all cases though they should and will be discussed on their own merits. There is no such thing as "allow one, allow all" because that's not how Wikipedia works. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except possibly in the vanishingly rare circumstance that a lyric video somehow qualifies for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song it's lyric-videoing, no lyric video could ever have any different considerations than this one does: no lyric video could ever be any more in need of a redirect than this one, and no lyric video could ever be any less in need of a redirect than this one. So essentially it is an all-or-nothing situation, because no lyric video would ever be subject to any different considerations than any other. It's not a class of topic where there are notable, non-notable and on-the-cusp members who need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, like singers or bands or albums or songs — it's a class of topic where virtually all lyric videos are of precisely equal non-notability, and there's never any case to be made that some of them need redirects more than others do. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And "if they are good redirects we'll keep them if they're created, if they aren't then we'll delete them if nominated" is highly, um, optimistic. RfD regularly poos the screwch because too few editors have any interest in this process and it's mostly the same handful of people over and over again imposing their preferences, which run very inclusionist toward certain categories of things and very deletionist towards others. Given RfD penchant for treating previous decisions as precedent to cite, I think this should be nuked with extreme prejudice.
There is no reader-facing purpose served by this redir, because the redirect target is a section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia about YouTube content created by random nobodies (most of them anonymous), with no sources but the primary source of the YT video existing at all (and there will surely never be any actually reliable, independent, secondary sourcing about this music-video equivalent of fanfic). That whole section should be and probably will be deleted, though I won't go do it right now because it would be WP:POINTy in influencing the RfD outcome. That material is like creating at the article Spock a section for "Internet-posted paintings and drawings of Spock". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish. Redirects for lyric videos are unideal because nearly every song has a lyric video, making it generally too unimportant to be a disambiguator. Utopes(talk / cont)01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Content about lyric videos are encyclopedic and there are several song articles with a lyric video section. However, delete per the reasoning that lyric videos are never independent of its parent song article titled similarly, so there is no reason for a disambiguated title redirect. As pointed out by SMcCandlish, the Category for lyric videos was also deleted, hence such redirects are not useful for categorizing. Jay 💬08:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
From what I can tell, all I-63 proposal are coming from blogs or personal pages; this does not qualify as a reason to have this redirect. ChessEric21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Technically this is the first relist since proper bundling Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m reluctant to formally !vote, due to my lack of familiarity with the topic; however, I thought these factors that may weigh in favour of keeping one of the redirects were worth noting. (It might be worth leaving invitations to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alabama.)
On a side note, looking at the history of U.S. Route 43 and List of future Interstate Highways, the number 63 seems to have been sourced to Interstate-Guide.com, which in turn is (apparently) run by AARoads.com. Whether or not they’re a reliable source is probably a question better suited for WP:RSN (aaroads.com is cited in multiple articles, but I couldn’t quickly find a discussion about the site in the RSN archives).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For Persia (Iran) - retarget or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Well, that's weird. The second one looks like an emoji identical to the first when viewing on a browser, but when editing the page, it almost looks like a one-character emoticon. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Cometorkeep. Before anyone brings up deletion, I'll mention that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. This is probably why every other emoji redirect discussion brought up this year has concluded in a keep/retarget decision. (See prior discussions here: 🤭, 👩💻, 🛋️, ⏫/⏬, 🫸/🫷, 🤪, 🙀, 👯♂️, 🫥, 👾, 🧑🦳, 👏, 💨, 😶🌫, 🤗, 😬, 🏚️, 💁♂️/💁/💁♀️, 🫗, 🔞, 🏴, & 🔥) Enix150 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget to Comet. Also, Enix150, you've made this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument before, and, to be blunt, I'm sick of it. Saying that "oh, deleting that would make it the only {x} without a redirect on Wikipedia" isn't even an argument because it doesn't remotely have a basis in any policy, guideline, or even essay. This comment, which you have copy/pasted over and over, amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is tired because we've had the same debate over and over again, and each time the outcome is the same. This emoji is named Comet and should clearly redirect to the intended target article of the same name. As for policy determination, it is currently being rehashed at the Village pump. Until that gets solved we're going to have to have the same debate every time someone adds an emoji to RfD, but all eighteen discussions so far have decided that keep/retarget is the best option. Enix150 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And while there is no clear consensus for a single outcome at that discussion, those options involving deletion are by far the least favoured. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep, retarget or a combination? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk21:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
In which case Wait until the AfD concludes. If the DougDoug article is deleted then this is moot as there will be only one encyclopaedic topic to which it can refer. If the AfD consensus is for some action other than deletion then we can discuss where best to point this redirect at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as primary per Thryduulf. DougDoug already has the hatnote to Doug E. Doug. Oppose repointing to Doug (disambiguation) as DougDoug cannot be added as an entry there. If DougDoug is deleted at the AfD, then keep. Jay 💬07:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate DougDoug has 10,989 views and Doug E. Doug has 10,072[[1]]. Per SMALLDETAILS its quite likely people looking for DougDoug would type the more normal "Doug Doug" so it probably doesn't indicate a specific topic so its probably best to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it's very plausible that someone who has heard of Doug Doug but doesn't know (or doesn't remember) they use camelcase will search for the spaced title (especially as Wikipedia article titles frequently don't don't replicate stylisations). Secondly, the evidence from google searches is that "Doug Doug" as a two word phrase does indicate a specific topic, and that topic is the YouTuber. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're first point is what I was saying that people aren't normally expected to search using unusual casing etc so people looking for YouTuber will probably use "Doug Doug". In terms of you're second point yes Google suggests the YouTuber but the actor has similar views and most people don't use middle initials so someone looking for the actor would probably use "Doug Doug" as well so its probably best to say no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that all the evidence shows that there is a primary topic, and it's the YouTuber. Note that because the redirect takes people looking for the YouTuber to the actor, many of the views for the actor's article weren't looking to read that article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews statistics I cited don't support there being a primary topic. And unless views are skewed towards a recent event or there is otherwise an odd spike I consider it the most reliable method and we can can probably say both uses are likely to be searched for this way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoDougDoug. "Doug E. Doug" is similar but different to "Doug Doug", whereas "DougDoug" is just a stylization of "Doug Doug". They are similar enough that either way there are probably going to be people who are going to search "Doug Doug" looking for either one, but the DougDoug page already has a disambiguation note for Doug E. Doug so anybody potentially searching "Doug Doug" looking for Doug E. Doug will find it right there immediately anyways. It also seems to me that Doug E. Doug is a relatively obscure actor, and while both people are relatively obscure in the grand scheme of things, DougDoug is fairly well known and significant within the online video space whereas Doug E. Doug isn't particularly significant to the field of acting. ARZ100 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors remain divided between deletion, retargeting, or keeping outright after two relists. signed, Rosguilltalk23:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just how {{Wikiquote redirect}} works. It directs to Special:Search (presumably in case the article with that exact name doesn't exist), which makes no difference if the article does exist, as in that case the end user will get redirected to the article automatically. Randi🦋TalkContribs15:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the nomination statement is incorrect - the quote does appear on the target page (and has done consistently since the page was created in 2019). The lack of incomming internal links is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"4th" vs "fourth" (and "DAMN" vs "damn") are trivial spelling changes and do not mean the phrase is not on the target page. We would not delete the redirect for these reasons if the target was local, so it is not justification for doing so because it's an interwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect): Redirects can't be non-notable because it is not an article, but a redirect. If you read WP:BLAR, it says "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect." Most articles are BLARed because of notability problems and because of this, WP:N does not affect redirects. Also, the quote is mentioned in the Wikiquote article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the phrase is on the target page. That it is not spelled exactly as it is here "4th" vs "fourth" is irrelevant, someone looking for the content will find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
List of assets owned by major automobile corporations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not sure what this title is meant to represent, specifically regarding "assets". Otherwise, this redirect was an article for a day in 2007, during which the article's creator WP:BLARed the article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and rename. Based on the history, this seems to have been intended as a List of automobile manufacturers by parent company. As far as I can tell this is not content we have anywhere, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be potentially useful to have. As such I recommend reverting the BLAR and renaming the article to something more logical without prejudice to an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content that was in the former article is not what I would have expected to find at that title. "Assets" does not generally refer to an automaker's brand ownership. I'm not convinced that the content that existed there in 2007 is anything that should be retained. --Sable232 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page, without prejudice to AfD. At present, it’s an {{R with history}} (engaging K1), with previous content that hasn’t been assessed by AfD (per Thryduulf, whether or not to retain it is a decision for AfD to make). A page at this title has also existed since 2007, engaging K4. Any renaming/AfD nominating can be done boldly, but without any prejudice to doing so. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to restore the unsourced mess at Special:Permalink/122198778 when its own author felt, 16 years ago, that it duplicated List of automobile manufacturers. That's just adding maintenance burden to the people who clean up unsourced articles, for no real benefit. It's not even content anyone here appears prepared to vouch for, and presumably some things have changed in the world of auto-making since 2007? So delete. If someone else wants to write this article, they're welcome to, but they're better off doing so from the ground up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 09:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16 years ago it might have duplicated another article, but it doesn't duplicate anything today, so your comment is almost entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Another pointless redirect of what seems to just be a subdivision, which is never mentioned in the target article. Very unlikely search term and even if someone is searching for it, they won't find any information on the Madera County article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle San Joaquin River Estates with this. Jay 💬05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬08:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Unlikely search term, since this appears to just be a subdivision, and the target article does not mention River Road Estates at all. Should simply be deleted. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle River Road Estates with this. Jay 💬05:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as an unlikely search term redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Pointless redirect; seems to just be a subdivision. Target article makes no mention of any "Madera Country Club Estates", making it misleading. Should simply delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AFD, I don't see a problem with deleting uncontested redirections at RFD but this one has been at AFD so should go there again if deletion is desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle Madera Country Club Estates with this. Jay 💬05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle Lake Madera Country Estates with this. Jay 💬05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of late deletion proposal. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬08:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is still opposition, and the closer found no consensus to delete. If you want to challenge that closure then policy allows you two places to do that: 1. the closer's talk page, and 2. WP:DRV. Also, declaring it wrong or invalid is exactly what we would be doing by deleting it here (this comment applies to all these similar discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Was removed from the List of Gen Z slang article, leaving it mentionless as a redirect to a page with no useful information about the subject. "Kittens" are not mentioned at Discord either, making it not worth pointed there, so I feel it should be deleted until there's a reason to recreate it with content at a particular page. Utopes(talk / cont)20:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep, I've added a sourced mention that it was their nickname in 1903. Thanks to Jay for finding a location to get a source from. --Tavix(talk)19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I am presuming this is a poker player, based on the category and this now-banned socks other redirect creations without any mention at the target page. Even with that being the situation though, it having the "Disney fandom" category and pointing at this target baffles me. Not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia (apart from Stefan (given name), where it has the description "Swedish professional translator, quarter-professional writer, and semi-amateur poker player"). Utopes(talk / cont)19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. This is a combination of a SNOW deletion and a G5 deletion, with a touch of R3 too. JBW (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name of a Nepalese politician that does not appear at the target page. A sock hijacked an existing redirect to create a page for this politician, but since swapping the pages back to their original location, there isn't any reason to keep this as a result. Utopes(talk / cont)19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Utopes with the page history mess now fixed I see no reason why Saraswoti Pokhrel should now be retained. The target article gives the Sanksrit as Sárasvatī-nadī́, so it does not appear to be an R from alternate language and this title is not mentioned at that target. As 2001:DF7:BE80:11E:3521:AA51:4A2F:EC94 was also blocked for violating a block/ban see [2], that leaves you and I as the only good-standing contributors in the page history. I don't really think either of our edits are substantive, but even if they are, I'm OK with requesting a G5 with our edits covered under G7 if you are. I guess you could just link to this discussion in that request. On the other hand if I'm missing a reason for the redirect to exist and someone chimes in here with a keep rationale then feel free to do nothing. It would be kind of pointless to delete a redirect under G5 only to immediately recreate it for being useful. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:24DE:F159:39FF:48EF (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been tagged with G5. Because the pageswappage and edits at both titles, I figured I'd at least post the circumstance to RfD, under the pretext that if it gets CSD'd while listed here, so be it. Utopes(talk / cont)20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I could be wrong, but it looks like this is... the name of the Airline's safety video on YouTube? I can't think of a time where we have pointed names of YouTube videos at related subject matters, especially when the word "wonder" doesn't appear anywhere at the target page. I could be missing context though, but it doesn't seem very helpful if unmentioned. Utopes(talk / cont)19:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the redirect creator left a handy link on the talk page [3]. Copying and pasting that text into Google Translate backs up what googling the name suggested - the safety video is quite likely notable (at least for a section) having won multiple awards and gained attention outside of its niche - and certainly it's not just a typical safety video. I can't think of a time where we have pointed names of YouTube videos at related subject matters I don't have examples from YouTube off the top of my head, but we redirecting the titles of notable works to the articles about their creator or other appropriate target is routine and there is no reason why YouTube videos would be any different. However, the issue the nominator is correct about is that there is currently no mention at the target, or anywhere else I can find on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key qualifier with my statement is the fact that it's a one-way relation, evident from the article not mentioning that it has a safety video in the first place. It's not a requirement to talk about the safety video, and if it's won awards then it likely could have a place, but in the current form it does not even acknowledge its existence, which is what my statement targets in regards to related videos. If the two (in this case YouTube video & airline) were intrinsically tied together, I'd expect to see the contents bound in some fashion where even if it doesn't mention "StarWonderers" directly, it at least has something sufficient that relates the two, such as the awards or similar. With no mention currently, that does not seem to be the case. Utopes(talk / cont)08:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A competitor? A subsidiary? I'm quite confused about what this is, as this company is not mentioned at the target article. No mentions of "soft" or "qloud" either.
Looking up on Google, there seems to be some relationship between these two, with the first headline being "Softqloud...terminated its contract with ArvanCloud". But if the contract has been terminated between these two, then to my understanding these aren't synonyms. It's confusing regardless, I feel. Nothing about this subject on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont)18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete: This appears to be a term that is potentially racist in German. The only viable target I could see is List of ID3v1 genres, which mentions it; however, it has no context for it other than it being a genre of ID3 that was selectable from the predefined list of genres in v1 in Winamp. TartarTorte13:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. This seems to be a remnant of a 9-minute temporary page name on 1 June 2023. It has a very strange formatting of single quotes within double quotes separated by spaces. There are no other titles like that in the entire English Wikipedia. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The double quote-space-single quote-hyphen on either side is not ever going to be replicated. And while the main title does need the hyphen and single quote, it is not lost that And He Built a Crooked House is the most likely way that people get here to begin with. This title, though, is implausible in its structure, as it is not a way this subject is ever specified as. Utopes(talk / cont)19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Other Spider-Man media released in 2018, like the nominator's example of Into the Spider-Verse, has a subtitle distinguishing them from other Spider-Man media. The issue is that the 2018 video game has no subtitle, so people clarify that they are referring to that video game specifically by using the year. Using the year to clarify meaning is not used with something like Into the Spider-Verse because it has a subtitle, unlike the video game. —Lowellian (reply) 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of all the existing pages that link to both the current target and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse only two are plausible targets for this redirect Spider-Man and 2018 in science fiction, both of which are too broad to be useful (everything else is massively too broad (e.g. 2010s), too narrow (e.g. Spider-Man in film), tangential (e.g. Empire State Building in popular culture) or linked only by the navigation template (e.g. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack)). There is no list (or category) of Spider-Man media sorted by release date, and a single such list would be far too unwieldy - a series of lists organised by decade might (I've not looked) be more manageable but they do do not currently exist and I have no idea if the folk who edit the Spider-Man articles would be interested in creating and maintaining them. Thryduulf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred disambig per nom, as the current target is called Marvel's Spider-Man. However, an external search for "Spider-Man 2018" appears to show the video game as primary, hence keep and hatnote per Presidentman. Jay 💬07:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If someone was seriously intending to reach a page about lisps, they are not going to type lisp as it would sound with a lisp, i.e. as "lithp". This redirect is two letters off of a 4 letter title-word; this is not a plausible accidental misspelling. Utopes(talk / cont)09:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting some traffic, and is a very common humorous pronunciation respelling of the target - one that I can see non-native speakers using for example. The only other use of any prominence is a joke programming language described as "less known" even among the set of joke programming languages and rightfully not mentioned on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The target page doesn't mention "smoke". While I'm quite sure this is a piece of military jargon, searching for this title on Google in quotes mainly just returns results for there being smoke... in the air... and talks about air quality when there's smoke in it, as well as a map of fires for smoke in the air. This does not seem like a phrase exclusive to the target article. Utopes(talk / cont)08:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The hyphen used to signify a break in the quote, followed by the use of a subjective spelling of "whaddaya", means that its too inconsistent to nail down in a useful title. While this quote exists in two different parts at the target, the unlikely weaving of both with this required style and misspelling makes this implausible and not worth maintaining, from my point of view. Utopes(talk / cont)06:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Guys, I'm eating junk food and watching rubbish, you better come out and stop me!
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
"Junk food" and "rubbish" are not mentioned at the target article. Because this quote is never actually discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, it doesn't need a redirect. People interested in searching for "Home Alone" would just type in that as a search term, not a random line from it that nobody would expect to be a redirect, especially with no mention at the target page to justify it. Utopes(talk / cont)06:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Neither "moon", "concentrate", "heavenly", nor "glory" are mentioned at the target article. It isn't even the right quote because the actual quote is "to the moon" from the movie, but neither are plausible search terms to begin with and nothing about this quote makes it seem it needs to be a redirect, and without context of why this redirect exists, it is not helpful to readers. Utopes(talk / cont)06:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The quote is wrong. The quote is "...It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." I think that with a quote of this length and including punctuation, the "It's" instead of "it is", makes this pretty implausible as the highest likelihood it seems of someone searching this is via copy-and-paste, but not with it's instead of it is. TartarTorte14:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Redirects of trivial quotes are unhelpful to readers. And it's way too long for anyone to plausibly type in the search bar anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
"They call me" is not mentioned anywhere in this article (the word "me" isn't mentioned at that), and even if it was, the colon and single quotations is too highly specific of a format that makes it highly unorthodox and unlikely to be useful Utopes(talk / cont)06:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to In the Heat of the Night (film): This is a pretty famous line from In the Heat of the Night; however, I would argue it's more famously associated with the film than the novel or the novelist. It could soft target q:In the Heat of the Night (film), but I think the wikipedia article provides better context. I think the punctuation is a bit odd, but I think the redirect is potentially salvageable. TartarTorte14:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural, second redirect was not properly tagged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit03:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's still not entirely clear where this redirect should target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!02:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per Ivanvector. My first thought was progress bar, honestly. Too vague and unhelpful as a search term and too many potential targets that wouldn't make sense to disambiguate. 〜Askarion✉23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).