The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. From Internet memesMB 23:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dulete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 06:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The 6 non-parishable foods of the Oregon Trail[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:BobKilcoyne tagged this for speedy deletion, which was converted into a PROD by User:BangJan1999. However, PROD does not apply to redirects, so I am bringing this here. I support BobKilcoyne's rationale for deletion: "the original article/comments appears to lack any sensible purpose, it is an extremely unlikely search term to be used, it incorporates the destination redirect title within the redirect and includes a spelling error". HouseBlastertalk 22:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The spelling error makes this an unlikely search term, and while the current target does discuss food it doesn't note which items are perishable and which aren't. I suspect the target is actually intended to be The Oregon Trail (series), one of the 5 games in that series or, Oregon Trail (board game) however none of those articles list food items, let alone which are and aren't perishable, so there is no suitable target I can find for a correctly spelled redirect. The article prior to redirection would be speedily deletable under criterion A3 (no content) so there is no issue with deleting article content here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a plausible search term with that spelling error and the term isn't discussed in the target article even if correctly spelled. Hut 8.5 07:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking the title up yields nothing other than this redirect and sites copy-and-pasting Wikipedia. MightyArms (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
@Victuallers: This comment was erroneously placed between the RfD listings instead of below the nominator's comment. The other was placed in the correct position. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other similar redirects nominated today. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikidata redirects are not particularly useful per consensus. TartarTorte 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Unmentioned Candidate's name presidential campaign, 2020[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget 3, delete 1.
None of these people are mentioned at the target article as their campaigns seemed thoroughly non-notable. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and delete per Presidentman's recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EliminateMichael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020 and redistrict the rest Presidentman's way. I recently took the similar Robby Wells 2020 presidential campaign to its sister's proposed target, where I'm hoping the links (and ballots) will be counted. It's not worth confusing people if there's information available elsewhere on Wikipedia-or not available at all. Regards, SONIC678 00:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and delete per Presidentman and Sonic678. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and delete per above Przemysl15 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 can't see anything that refers to Jacksonville as "Freakville" other than an urban dictionary post that seems to cite the existence of this redirect as a claim. Regardless, it also seems to be used to refer to a variety of other places, but none in common usage enough for it to be DABified. Deletion seems like the best option. TartarTorte 13:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to mention it, so that works for me. Oddly that didn't pop up on GNews when I was trying to find "Freakville" to mean Jacksonville, but there definitely is a verified citation for it in the article. TartarTorte 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, confusing template redirect. "Medical Warning" and "More medical citations needed" are in no way synonymous. I think this redirect has the potential to confuse or mislead people looking for actual warning templates (which should not be used, per WP:No disclaimers). 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've left a note at WT:WPMED about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This title was originally created as a template in 2008, but that was speedily deleted the following day under then-applicable criterion T2 for blatantly misrepresenting the policy against disclaimers in articles. The redirect was created apparently independently in 2016. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unhelpful redirect, unlikely to ever be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. Jay 💬 12:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From "nonnotable content", the thing that comes to my mind is content that isn't closely related to the subject of the article. I know there is an acronym somewhere for that but I don't seem to remember it. But yeah, current target looks misleading. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree the target is to do with topics not content so this is confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. Jay 💬 12:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and confusing template redirect. Incomprehensible is not remotely synonymous with nonsense, it is entirely possible to write an article which makes complete sense but is incomprehensible, you might have an article written in technical jargon, for example. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it also being possible to have a fully comprehensible article that is complete nonsense. Template:Nonsense redirects to template:Db-g1, a speedy deletion template, but I don't propose to retarget there as speedy deletion and cleanup are very separate things that should not be conflated. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. Jay 💬 09:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 06:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and page mover. Cross namespace redirect, and implausible typo ("=edit"). —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects apparently arose from an MfD discussion in 2014, but there is no reason to have these WP:XNRs from userspace, as these did not arise from a page move or merge. The numbered sandbox subpages should simply be blanked, as User:ColonelHenry/sandbox/sandbox4 already boldly was. The more specifically named ones should either be likewise blanked, or deleted (perhaps better decided at WP:MFD rather than at RfD). In any case, these don't seem to be useful redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There is almost never any reason to delete redirects from user subpages unless the user concerned desires it. The only exceptions are when the redirects are actively harmful and these are not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to me that a sandboxes with generic, numbered pagenames that have been employed for content development for multiple unrelated articles should be redirected to the most recent associated article in mainspace. If the user weren't indefed, presumably they would eventually blank these pages to reuse them for drafting new content. If the MfD has determined that for whatever reason the content of these pages should not be kept, but the page history be preserved, they should just be blanked (like one already boldy was). As for the more specifically titled ones, I'm less sure, but the only reason that comes to mind to have a redirect would be for anyone reaching the userpage could quickly navigate to a subset of the things that user worked on? Seems like a lousy reason to have a redirect. The Mfd was unclear regarding as to why some userpages were deleted and others were redirected. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding principle is that we should only ever make changes to another users' userspace (or indeed any page anywhere) unless that change brings some positive benefit to the project. Deleting completely harmless pages that consensus at MfD decided were unproblematic is not in accordance with that principle, indeed deletion obscures the history of the articles concerned so has a net dis-benefit to the project. Blanking the pages doesn't actually harm the project in any way, but neither does it benefit it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, second choice blank. Userspace to mainspace redirects are kept so the author can find their work. Sockpuppeteers are not users in good standing, we need not accommodate them. --Tavix(talk) 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to blanking, but do regard it as pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for lack of a convincing reason to do anything; there's no reason to go out of our way to help sockpuppeteers, but there's no reason to try to damnatio memoriae them either. * Pppery *it has begun... 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no issues at all with these redirects. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Template:American Engilsh
