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 just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --MikutoHtalk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personality trait of agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something. Jcbutler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability. Jcbutler (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the most common reason someone would search for this is to find what a "Favorability rating" is, in the context of Opinion polls... but that article doesn't describe or define that term specifically, so it may not be the best target. Crosswiki'ing to wiktionary won't provide the information to the searcher either, as it just defines the word and doesn't discuss or illuminate how it is used, particularly in politics, where someone might be confused about it. I feel like this may actually be a potential article in the making, but I'll be honest and say I don't want to do it. I'm also not sure where this redirect should go. Maybe leaving it as a WP:REDLINK would be best? I'm not sure! Fieari (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retargettowikt:favorability. Redirects are cheap and making it a soft redirect makes it much more helpful than having the reader stare at a bunch of search results. Also, both Google and DuckDuckGo mostly bring up dicdefs, so I don't think it'd hurt if we had another. Duckmather (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a generic term incapable of disambiguation. The sole incoming link meaning of sex-favorable may be created as a different titled redirect, if needed. Jay 💬 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of feel like we should have an article on the concept of favorability of opinion at this title. Polling for favorability is not always reserved for politicians. BD2412T 00:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the suggestion of Duckmather. Until someone comes with reasonable number of disambiguatable pages. --MikutoHtalk! 00:18, 27 April 2024 (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 retargettoGale (publisher). I believe I agree. I'm going to boldly target the main article instead of the section, as it's short enough and OneFile is mentioned throughout and not just in products. (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 01:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General OneFile not mentioned or discussed at target; the only mention of onefile is in an external link, and "general" is never used in relation to it. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gale (publisher)#Products: where it is mentioned and seems like a more relevant page now. (Although something like this a redirect without a mention where it's verifiable is still useful to readers in many cases.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 22:33, 18 April 2024 (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.
Used to target a section, since removed. The article does not talk about gender, and is a WP:XY situation as it stands. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, clear XY issue. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoAuthoritarian personality; restore section. Last edit the section can be found in is here. The section that this redirect used to target was moved to Authoritarian personality in October 2019 by user:Neutrality; it was then removed in May 2023 by an IP editor for being "irrelevant" to the article. Notably, the only other edit this IP editor made, done on the same day and also removing a deemed-"irrelevant" section of an article, was reverted near immediately. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and restore section per Lunamann. --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and restore section per Lunamann. Okmrman (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2024 (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.
Apparently this specific political party's formal name at one point in the past included the em dash. Since readers are unlikely to be familiar with the way Nepalese political parties copy each other's names with minor pertubations this should be retargeted to the dab at Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). * Pppery *it has begun... 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is It is not a good idea to link to disambiguation pages at all. The Bannertalk 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm?? Inline links to disambig pages from article space are usually incorrect, but I don't see any reason a redirect shouldn't point there. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second target doesn't mention it at all. First target mentioned it in passing but not with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - the first target does list a few examples of teams finishing their season with a 0-20 record, but each one is in a league without a set number of games that each team plays (byes and such, or seasons shortened due to lockout/illness/insolvency) such that an 0-20 record isn't necessarily "winless" in the same way as, for example, an 0-16 record is for an NFL team. The second redirect has an edit summary on creation indicating that "0-20" is a Dutch nickname for Ajax Amsterdam (which was moved to the current target some time ago) but the article does not mention this at all, and I did not find anything in a Google search that suggests this is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As List of winless seasons has only one mention of 0-20 (one match of all the sports listed there had the outcome once) and AFC Ajax doesn't mention 0-20 anywhere, neither are sensible redirect targets. Not clear what people would be looking for when searching this, so better to delete and let people use Wikipedia search function to find what they want when searching 0-20. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as above. GiantSnowman 14:24, 21 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about the latilactobacillus one, but 0-1 is a standard chess notation indicating that black won the match; the article describes this. I also have no idea how we would determine if that is the primary usage. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both are expressions that could show up in all sorts of contexts, and the targets are far too specific (particularly the bacillus). No obvious alternative target. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The most obvious target from my perspective is zero–one law, but that's likely biased by my background. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. BD2412T 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's also reasonable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could redirect one to the other, and list the three targets that have been mentioned, for a start. Not the most useful disambig page ever, but not completely implausible. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three targets is plenty for disambiguation. Also, there are several O-1 constructions (letter O rather than number 0), which could easily be confused for 0-1. BD2412T 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even two targets is enough for disambiguation if there's no primary topic. My hesitation here is that none of them are particularly good targets for the search terms in question. We could add all three targets to O-1 and reword the top of the page; I wouldn't be actively opposed to that. But there is a cost to making disambig pages longer; it means it takes longer to find the page you're looking for. So I think that (small) cost has to be weighed against the (also small) value of helping people who type 0-1 or 0–1 into the search bar, and who could probably type something more specific if they wanted to. --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: overly broad term with no clear primary topics or sensible targets for a disambiguation page. Let people decide what they want to see when they type this by directing them to the search, rather than random redirects or a dab page that wouldn't be very useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: That is a delightfully optimistic take, but the search function just does not work that way. The first page of search results for "0-1" returns:
What in this list would help a reader "decide what they want to see" when they search for 0-1? BD2412T 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think listing a disambiguation page with every article mentioning 0-1 would be helpful either, because we have no clue what someone searching for that is actually looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2024 (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).
World – Seeks Worldwide Online Participatory Democracy[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 03:29, 26 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and per WP:REDLINK. We have articles on North American winters for every season starting with 2009–10 North American winter, while we only have coverage of winter weather for other regions when it's significantly out of character, or for specific weather events. Presumably the editors who have an interest in these articles will get to 2006-07 eventually. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:29, 26 April 2024 (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).
South African cricket team in India in 2021–22[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 03:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as misleading, the series was held in South Africa, and was never planned to be held in India like these redirects incorrectly suggest. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2024 (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).
Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present)[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.
"Baker–Unity Highway" is mentioned at both targets. "No. 13" is mentioned nowhere, leaving the context confused. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per president Okmrman (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If retargeting, we would need to remove the self-redirect from the list, and I could not figure out how the list page works, as I see no mention of this highway in Edit mode. The {{Routelist row}} template uses some transclusion magic and sources the name of highways from somewhere. Jay 💬 18:21, 28 April 2024 (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.
That section no longer exists. This character is mentioned exactly once in the whole article, and that mention is in passing. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, mentioned exactly once is still mentioned. I have changed the target section to the one that mentions the character. BD2412T 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: One mention in passing while talking about a different character would disappoint anyone who was trying to look up information about this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would read it as that being everything of encyclopedic value that there is to say about the character. BD2412T 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the one mention is fine, a minor character which is related to the character the redirect leads to. I have also added sources to that section just in case it is flagged as unsourced. CaptainGalaxy 18:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not sure dropping a reader into a search result with a mix of partial matches, this article, and Donkey Kong Country (TV series) (which the target section links to) is an improvement. Skynxnex (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it stands this is a correctly-targeted redirect. If anyone were to add more information at any point, here is where they'd add it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in the article. An alternative, non-standard, ostensibly wrong, rendition of the keyboard layout (going from top to bottom instead of from left to right), but it's a rendition. As a lexical item it exists. Not someting that we need to overthink. —Alalch E. 19:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cheap. (Fwiw, Cubby's now glocked and blocked, so I don't think you're gonna get anything from them.) Queen of ♡ | speak 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of bored people in work/school (I would know) end up just mashing random key combinations. Also, As Alalch pointed out, this is still a rendition of the QWERTY layout. Just look at the pageviews for Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm. Even if we divide that by 5, that's still ~30 page views/month, which is sizeable. Keep note that redirects are cheap. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would make sense if the qwerty keyboard were called the qaz keyboard instead, but Qaz is about a village in Iran with no mention. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Alalach, this is a firmly incorrect and non-standard rendition, but it is still a rendition of the qwerty keyboard. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - A stupid redirect, but not a misleading redirect, and redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is an unlikely search term and I can't find where this term is mentioned on the target article. I did a word search and nothing popped up. LizRead!Talk! 03:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-useful, unlikely search term that only exists as a novelty, and unmentioned in the article. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even if it is a valid rendition, it is unlikely for this search term to be used. NasssaNser 04:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do I think this is a highly unlikely search term, when I do search for it on google, the results aren't about the Qwerty keyboard. (They're about being bored and keyboard smashing.) The article on Qwerty will be of no help to someone looking for that kind of result, and there's no reason to keep a redirect simply because sometimes people get bored and type weird things into the wikipedia search bar. -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (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.
PROD'd by user:Ergzay, who states "Destination page no longer contains info regarding this and no page on Wikipedia exists for this. Best to return this to non-existence and let someone create it when it's needed." PROD can only be used on actual articles, so I'm moving this here as a courtesy. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware you couldn't use the template for this purpose. The documentation isn't very clear.
As to the matter at hand, even with the change in the redirect done by @N2e it still doesn't talk anything about a propellant plant. It looks like N2e did a bunch of editing to add some details quickly, but I'm not sure if this was just restoring old content that was previously deleted or not. It might get removed again given that that page has been pared down a ton from what it was because of low quality sourcing. Ergzay (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, propellant plant is mentioned and discussed at target. No other conflicting articles on Wikipedia according to nom, WP:CHEAP. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoInterplanetary spaceflight#Propellant plant on a celestial body where the plant is actually discussed. A propellant plant is mentioned at the current target, but only in passing, and in such a manner that one would have to alreay know what it was to get anything useful from it (the kind of place a bluelink would be useful). A7V2 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That target only has a passing mention of "SpaceX propellant plant", although it does go more in depth with propellant plants there. Going to the SpaceX specific article might be preferable for people that include "SpaceX" in the search term, although I don't mind either option. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my interpretation (perhaps incorrect) that the section, while not written that well, was more or less entirely about the SpaceX plan. The last paragraph at least is entirely about it, not what I'd call a passing mention. A7V2 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SpaceX need for, and intent to place on Mars, propellant equipment is discussed at the target. There are clearly few details, but the notable SpaceX endeavor to build a Mars-capable large spacecraft is covered in hundreds of sources, and that spacecraft (now flying in a test program), will need the Mars-generated propellant to refill it on Mars making SpaceX discussion of the propellant facility also notable, as also shown by sources at the redirect target. N2e (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per utopes Okmrman (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "88" is neo-Nazi symbolism (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, I'm not going to elaborate further) but it was a bot that got it to that size, not the user. Someone who knows what they're doing could have engineered that, but this seems more likely to be coincidence. Anyway, this is speediable per G12 as an unattributed copy of an article, and probably as an actual copyvio as well judging by the initial edit being the full HTML markup of some other website. It's also speediable per G5 as a creation by a blocked user (creator is an obvious sock of HornseaOfficial), and let's throw in U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a test page, G2 is not applicable though. This nomination at RfD is valid just because the page had a (test?) edit to insert a redirect at the top of the page. The 8888 is a coincidence. G12 is not applicable. U5 is applicable if G5 is. Jay 💬 17:08, 25 April 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless redirect to a page which does not mention the search term. JBW (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (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 speedy delete per criterion G10. Without describing what this insult refers to at the target, this is an unreferenced personal attack on a living person. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned, non-neutral name. Somehow did not get eviscerated within the last 9 years, but my guess is that there might have used to be a mention at the target page to substantiate this insult redirect, in reference to one time that it was used to refer to Balls in 2012. Without mention at the target, this redirect is offensive and does not offer value. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No character (?) that uses the name Manta appears at the target article; this does not appear to be a useful redirect in its current state. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's a vehicle
still not mentioned, so do with the redirect what epic games did with the first unreal tournament in 2017. which is to say delete itcogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 11:27, 19 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty confused by this redirect; neither the word "man's", nor the phrase "red fire" appear at the target article. Not sure why someone would type this instead of the very likely alternative of searching for just "Fire"; this title does not seem useful as a redirect. Neither have any links or mentions on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know redirects are cheap, but this seems too trivial. What is the value of having this redirect, versus the (admittedly also minor) nuisance of having this title pop up in searches when it isn't relevant? --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that these contain curly quotes rather than standard apostrophes. Inclined to delete for that reason alone. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I created redirects for these that have the correct apostrophes. Interstellarity (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A meme not mentioned at the target article. For anyone that wanted to read about Lego City, Lego City is the perfectly natural search term. Prefacing it with the meme line from the Lego City commercial implies an interest in the man falling into the river in Lego City. Unfortunately, the man is nowhere to be found in the river, much as this line is nowhere to be found in the article. Not a helpful redirect in the article's current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible typo for the unmentioned search term of "Making television", which is already a roundabout way of reaching the target article. Errors in "avoided double redirects" are even more unlikely than errors in a page's actual title, and the misspelling coupled with the "making" verb pretense makes this too far out to salvage. Making television didn't use to exist, this probably could have been moved with redirect suppression as the original was initially aired as implausible in its former state. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:07, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of this imprint at the target article. "Make" and "A World" are not ever mentioned at the target article. As it stands, people who specifically search for the imprint instead of the publishing house itself are left without any context to the phrase that they typed in. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:59, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cat called "Maha" discussed at the target. Moreover, there is no character called Maha discussed there, or at the associated List of .hack characters. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of anything about a magnetic air car at the general-ish page for hybrid vehicles. As it stands, if people really wanted to search for hybrid vehicles, one would have used that search term outright. Specifying a magnetic air car and ending up at a page about hybrid vehicles in general is not a useful redirect for readers as it currently stands. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's an article in the history about a theoretical compressed-air vehicle which used a magnetic motor to compress the air for propulsion, rather than needing to be refuelled with compressed air. It was not a hybrid vehicle by our definition as it had only one source of power for propulsion. It also was never built: there was some hype about it about 10 years ago (around the same age as the article) and some patents filed, but then it vanished. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:06, 18 April 2024 (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. I'm going to decline to salt at this time, despite support for this, as there does not appear to have been any recent issue with this page being repeatedly created. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an encyclopedia, the word is now mentioned at the target, and the word is a "disability-related term with a negative connotation". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom, mentioned at the target or not. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recreate Fucktard as a redirect with the same target, both with indef full protection. The word is mentioned at the target and WP:WINC. Nickps (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, really not a good idea. Just because we can have unmentioned versions of a mentioned slur doesn't mean we should. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree that this is salt evasion, there was 5 years between the deletion of the salted title and the creation of the new one, and the creator never edited the original. The original page was salted because it was only being used for vandalism, while the new title was created explicitly with a target in mind. However, the term should be removed from the target: the one source given that's not paywalled happens to mention the word, but with no context other than an odd story about gluten sensitivity. Wikipedia is not censored but we are also not offensive for no reason; maybe Fucktard could be recreated as a Wiktionary redirect (wikt:fucktard exists) but this modified title should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - A source that is paywalled can still be a valid source. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it can, but I cannot verify it. My opinion is based on the information that I can verify. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and steel Okmrman (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per Utopes. Wait for if / when fucktard is recreated. Jay 💬 14:23, 1 May 2024 (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.
Weak retargettoHoldall, which is the target of gym bag, and which notes that it is also known as a sports bag in UK English although Sports bag does not exist. It does not discuss hockey, though. Our article ice hockey equipment does not describe bags, and duffel bag doesn't mention hockey; I haven't found anything better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:46, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of a character called Lynn Thomas at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:34, 18 April 2024 (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.
No information about Lower Quebec at the target article. Doing a spot check for other locations around the world, I could not find Lower Foobar ever be a redirect to Foobar, as the specification of lower almost certainly implies a different, undiscussed topic. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoOld Quebec § Lower Town, which is what this term generally refers to (though admittedly it is not explicitly mentioned there). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosbif73, it's a well-known synonym. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:19, 18 April 2024 (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 keep. Withdrawn, thanks for the context and additional rcat! (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 03:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People searching for motor oil that is specifically long life are likely looking for material on a specific topic that we don't cover. Similarly to people who specify Ultra short-term memory, the "long life" qualifier seems to indicate an undiscussed unmentioned variant. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the target does discuss innovations meant to extend the service intervals for motor oils, and summarizes some information on types of motor oil engineered with long life as a consideration (e.g. synthetic oil), although it does not use the term "long life" at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) "long-life" is mentioned (more than once) in motor oil at "(for example, BMW and VW with their respective long-life standards)", which undermines factual basis of nom. I'm also not sure if the nom's analogy helps as "Ultra short-term memory" or "ultra" isn't mentioned at Short-term memory. Widefox; talk 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point @Widefox:. Ultra wasn't mentioned in short-term memory, and the redirect was deleted as a result. In this case, I thought "Long life" wasn't mentioned either (hence why I brought up another unmentioned example). However, now it seems as if the version of "long-life" eluded me, so I was mistaken there. That said, I'm not seeing the "more than one" examples though; the example you talk about here is the only one I'm seeing (and is in reference to long-life standards, not motor oil, so I'm not super sure if it's likely yet). Utopes(talk / cont) 06:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that long-life standards refers to the motor oil. Searching for "long": ...LL-98 (Long Life 1998) , but some synthetic oil suppliers suggest that the intervals between oil changes can be longer, sometimes as long..., may perform better for longer . The longevity of the oil, and marketing of it is obviously an important subtopic for readers, which can be improved in the article. Widefox; talk 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is not anything particularly unique about "long life motor oil" - it is very similar in composition to other oils within a similar viscosity grade. For example compare [2] and [3] - both are a mixture of "distillates (petroleum)" and "lubricating oils (petroleum)". Although one has "long life" in the name and the other doesn't, they are both advertised as "long engine life" on product pages, with no numbers to compare, so it's not even clear which one actually gives longer life. There is little to say in a discussion of "long life" oil beyond how meaningless a term it is and how manufacturers often come up with new marketing gimmicks. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've bumped the redirect tag to "R from subtopic", which seems better than the no mention, or my previous "with poss...". Widefox; talk 15:07, 19 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no context about the idea of "living foods" at the target article, and mentions across Wikipedia are rough all around. Indeed, Living foods is a red link as it stands as well. Without any further context about this particular diet, it does not serve as a very useful redirect in the meantime if readers are left looking for material we don't have, it seems. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - Google reveals many different diet fads trying to rebrand as "living foods", most of it pseudoscientific bunk. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:30, 18 April 2024 (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.
No singer with this name is discussed at the target article. Does not help to redirect here, suggesting content that we do not have. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoLightsum. Note that members of South Korean K-pop group rarely uses their full name in their promotion, it is always without the surname or a stage name. I created it before Lightsum was published in mainspace but forgotten to retarget. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝) 11:10, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No song with this title discussed at the target article, not a helpful redirect in its current state. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:02, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No character with this name discussed at the target article. Not helpful as a redirect in its current state. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:59, 18 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this redirect implies that there are multiple {{hlist}} templates (e.g. {{hlist1}} and {{hlist2}}), but that is not the case. (And, as far as I can tell, has never been the case.) Delete as actively misleading. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom seems reasonable. Sdkbtalk 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not transcluded anywhere (only linked in page alerts related to this RfD, in {{hlist}}'s documentation, or in transclusions of the RfD page). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26#Gribbly
