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 lots of partial title matches in en.wiki. I suggest letting search do its thing instead --Lenticel(talk) 12:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned, and inhibiting Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the creator has deleted it (see [1]). Veverve (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 not sure if the current target is really good.
Here is what Saracen says. On the one hand, it is used to refer to Arabs, whatever their religion may be. On another hand: " The Roman Catholic Church and European Christian leaders used the term during the Middle Ages to refer to Muslims—usually Arabs, Turks, and Iranians"; so not exclusive to Arabs, but exclusive to all Muslims.
So, I do not know what to propose. Maybe those could be retargetted to Saracen, or simply be deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redirect them to the article discussing the same peculiar term. The list at "Arab empire" also has no captions, so it's extra bad. --Joy (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak RetargettoGabr. Geubre seems to be a synoynm but I'm not sure if geubres is a valid plural form for the word. --Lenticel(talk) 12:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Retarget per Uanfala's findings --Lenticel(talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoGabr, the OED has examples in the plural. – Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, looking at a redirect's history can often give you clues about what it's supposed to mean. This one was created in 2006 with the edit summary mk redirect according to Webster's 1913 ed. and Richard Burton. English dictionaries [2][3] define "gheber" as denoting (modern day) followers of the religion, but I'm not sure this term is neutral, so it seems best to retarget to Gabr, of which this is clearly a variant. – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agreee with User:Uanfala's suggestion to retarget to Gabr. It's a more direct and relevant target. --Slashme (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
No mention at the target. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was created as an article in 2012, and managed to exist for a day. Its content was '''Majosism''' or '''Majosi''' (Arabic: مجوسی /مجوسیت )is Arabic name for [[Zoroastrianism]].And this name is given by Holy [[Quran]].<ref>Quran:Surah</ref>. The redirect should probably be retargeted to Majus, the article about the term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. If someone really wants to restore and take it to AfD, we can do that, but it seems unlikely to lead to a different result (per Uanfala). Legoktm (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be recreated if the relevant part is re-added and is appropriate. A7V2 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially the article in the history of Wii Fit Girl could be restored and then Lauren Bernat redirected to it, but I don't think that would be necessary, depending on whether or not WP:G4 applies. But I don't object to restoring, anyway. A7V2 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not WP:G4 applies, I doubt the article is worth restoring. The concerns at AfD were per WP:BLP1E, which still seems to apply even if the article has been completely rewritten. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 22:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination statement makes sense, and given the BLP1E arguments present I doubt it would need to be restored. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Wii Fit Girl and let the Afd decide. If there is content that can be merged, it should be done. The deletion review that happened was for Lauren Bernat, but using the then freshly created Wii Fit Girl as an argument. The (incorrect) DRV was actually an argument to keep the vastly expanded Wii Fit Girl, rather than reversing the deletion of Lauren Bernat. Jay 💬 07:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Technically, the AFD/DRV results don't apply here: a BLP1E biography may be non-notable, but the event itself can have notability. However, in the linked discussions, I don't see anyone other than the page creator arguing for that. Given the time frame (the article existed for less than a day 13 years ago) and the nature of the topic (an apparently now long-forgotten viral video), I doubt anyone would argue now that the article should exist. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Acronym doesn't appear on page Rusalkii (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This acronym is from a transliteration of the Russian name for the university. КУТК is used in Russian, but it seems unlikely for KUTK to be used in English. Randi Moth (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see some sources that seem to use it.[4][5][6] Should probably be added to the article. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a niche academic term but for that scope is used quite commonly in the academic literature, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 10:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mention was added by Rauisuchian. Jay 💬 12:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a plausible search term or any of the other valid reasons for having a redirect here. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
This phrase isn't used to describe Trump himself. The current target is not helpful, and it's unclear whether a better one exists on WP. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a phrase used by his supporters when criticism is leveraged against him, particularly on-line, especially on Reddit. It probably shouldn't be in the Donald Trump article, but rather any of the various Trump criticism articles -- Criticism of Donald Trump24.51.192.49 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Firefangledfeathers since that better target exists. If it didn't, it'd be keep since it's a WP:V term people use for the target. Skynxnex (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic in saying this, but it's really not. It's a phrase used to make fun of critics of the target. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above suggestion, as that article is where the term is covered. Zaathras (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoDonald Trump in popular culture#Orange man bad where this is discussed per the above. The nom is correct that the current target is unsuitable since this is not a term used to refer to Trump himself. A7V2 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above, seems like the obvious solution. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario[edit]
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Eclipse of God
