Delete. These were created over 20 years ago, very early in Wikipedia's history, possibly when article titling was done differently. There is no substantial history on any of them. Some of them were originally the pages for the book before a move, and some were created as redirects. Apart from that creation/move, there are only some bot/maintenance edits. None of the redirects have any incoming links except for the Cryptonomicon one, which has userspace links on a list of redirects that some user is maintaining. --superioridad(discusión)18:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for now. Seems to be a camera accessory and also a name for a series of hypermarkets according to GSearch. --Lenticel(talk)01:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the basis for that nomination seems to have been that the redirect target was confusing(?). What alternate target do you think exists for 'green gables'? jp×g🗯️18:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History indicates that this used to be a problematic article that was then redirected to Italic peoples, then to Romance-speaking world which was relatively recently deleted (2023), and now re-created as a redirect to Latins by a new user. This should be discussed before we let it stay. Joy (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that Latin people or Latin peoples can be rather vague. It's been seen used colloquially just to mean "Latin Americans" and also been used in European contexts whether for present day Romance-speaking groups or for historical populations like the Italic Latins of antiquity. Since the article Latins covers broadly all "people-related" uses of this term since antiquity it seems like a good fit for a redirect. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be fine if this was stable, but in the latest rewrite, we already had a revert [1] by @Liz and a major intervention[2] by @Diannaa. A clearer consensus would be preferable. --Joy (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could also be referring to bowser jr., doopliss, or mario himself in earlier continuities. also arguably not fitting in the first place after... his debut, but that's besides the point cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while not explicitly called "evil Mario", Wario is designed as his evil counterpart, and is the most plausible target for "evil Mario" compared to various Mario games antagonists. Same for evil Luigi (Waluigi). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague, multiple "evil Mario" target possibilities exist and Wario does not equal Mario. If anything I'd expect this to go to a Mario (red hat) related article or respective list of characters, as no mention of "Evil Mario" exists at the current target for Wario. Utopes(talk / cont)23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these redirects have no point. Both these redirects (Baakghost and Baak (Telugu film)) along with Baak (Telugu Film) were initially created by SenthilGugan as Articles for the Telugu dubbed version of Aranmanai 4. After seeing no need for another article, when there's already a primary article and an Afd the pages were turned to redirects. But, there is no need these many redirects, as not even the Google recognizes these names. I only included two redirects because, the other one has already been Rfded. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make the target more precise to a section in the article: Aranmanai_4#Theatrical The title in the target section of this Telugu version of the film IS Baak. The second R was Redirected after an Afd and the first BLARed as ATD, so that the pages history and credits could be kept, which is always good. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Then, in order to preserve history and credits for both, rename the second (but then the double redirect needs to be fixed) OR change target so that it redirects to the Assamese folklore page (which will preserve the history, only upon a different topic). A DISAMB page can also be considered. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went ahead and restored the soft redirect, though I think this discussion should remain open since dabifying is also being considered as an option. CycloneYoristalk!00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as opposed to "evil mario" which was nominated a few days ago, which could have referred to a good handful of characters (ironically not including wario), there is a very concrete "evil luigi", that being mr. l from super paper mario, though he's only mentioned by name in luigi's article. i'd say retarget to super paper mario and mention his name there cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to my knowledge, those are actually the only ones. shadoo (also from super paper mario) could maybe probably count since he takes the shapes of the main cast (funnily enough, he copies mr. l's design instead of luigi's), though i haven't been able to find any other clones or doppelgängers wanting to be the better mario brother cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the expected result for "Evil Luigi" is Waluigi, same as somebody searching "Evil Mario" would expect to be redirected to Wario. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion with no opinion on keep vs. dabify. There is, I think we all agree, at least one plausible meaning of "Evil Luigi," so something should exist at that title. "Delete since it can plausibly refer to multiple subjects" does not match any of the rationales listed at WP:R#RCD. If there is only one meaning, then it can target that meaning. If there is more than one meaning, then it can be dabified (or we can pick a primary topic). There's no situation where you delete something that has at least one valid meaning. --NYKevin07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evil Luigi is Mr. L at most. Waluigi is not Luigi, and therefore cannot be "Evil Luigi" (as he would need to be Luigi to be evil, which he is not, and is a separate character). We do have a character on Wikipedia that is Luigi, and is "evil", i.e. Mr. L, so this if anything is the only possibility that exists. However, I would not expect this description of Mr. L to be a redirect, as "Mr. L" is a suitable and workable search term. No reason to have Bad LuigiorDevious Luigi. Utopes(talk / cont)19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's enough content to create a disambiguation page, that's certainly fine. If not, the redirect should be kept because the target provides a disambiguation-like function. - Eureka Lott17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do point them at pages that "serve a disambiguation-like function" though, which anthroponymy pages do. Oops, I thought I removed this comment before saving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eureka Lott. If Dougie is the only title needing disambiguation that is not a person or character's name, which seems to be the case, it's silly to have nearly-identical disambiguation and anthroponymy pages that only differ by that one link. Just add a hatnote or see-also to the existing list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be treated as an average redirect from incorrect disambiguation. The correct disambiguator in the title "Dougie (given name)" is "given name", and the disambiguator "disambiguation" is incorrect. No need to add an irrelevant see also link or hatnote to the anthro list. Someone who is at "Foo (given name)" doesn't need to be directed to "Foo" that is not name-related (not a "related or comparable" topic).—Alalch E.22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We actually need this to exist because there's a broken piece of software, which is used by a lot of people who disambiguate, that thinks links to "Dougie (given name)" need to be disambiguated, so they can at least pipe link this to avoid the software bug. --Joy (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. In addition to what's already been said, redirects that end in (disambiguation) which target a page performing a disambiguation-like function (rather than a disambiguation page) are also helpful for linking to Wikidata items. To use this redirect as an example, the French and Italian Wikipedias have a disambiguation page for the term Dougie, which are both linked to Dougie (Q13364643): Wikimedia disambiguation page. However, as Dougie (given name) is an article about the name & isn't a dab page, it's linked to the Wikidata item about the name itself (Dougie (Q3037978): male given name). Redirects such as Dougie (disambiguation) are able to be connected to the Wikidata item about the disambiguation page as a sitelink to redirect (as I've just done); and therefore allow readers of the French and Italian Wikipedias to access the enwiki article (that serves a disambiguation-like function) via an interlanguage link. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist, since there's some momentum away from keep despite the initial lead in numbers. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another redirect from unnecessary disambiguation that is not suitable for primary redirect. If CSD G7 requires a deletion, then the author request for blanking — but it is declined without an evidences occur. Fabien is only one storm for the naming storms in Southwestern Indian Ocean last 2023. This should be delete to prevent the typo parentheses like "(2021)". Icarus58 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, I'm also disagree about the standard practices on each tropical cyclone. Since lasts 4 months that I deleted the disambiguation article "Cyclone Fabien (2023)", Flux55 created the redirect again without a reasonable excuses. Icarus58 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless I'm missing something else. This is a standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect for all topics where there's any chance at all of using the disambiguator. Don't see how this increase the risk of typos as described nor why it could possibly be A7 eligible. Skynxnex (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous redirect is unnecessary disambiguation and I wonder how will transposed the main article as "Cyclone Hamoon". I suggest that this redirect should be delete without putting disambiguation as "(2023)" respectively. Icarus58 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, there is also a wrong typo like the disambiguation title like the parentheses "(2023)" and I surprised more redirects have standard practices by the other users. But for me, it is better to delete rather than spread more redirects like the only one storm naming in North and Southwest Indian Ocean basins. Icarus58 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All storms that aren’t at the main title have (year) after the storm name. Redirects are cheap so I see no point in deleting this. Noah, BSBATalk13:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Judging by the relative unnotability compared to the common -wich suffix, the existing page being a redirect to -wich town and keeping the existing hatnote on that page is fine. Just add a note at the top of wich (disambiguation) stating the primary topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]