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.
Change redirect - I agree with nom that science fiction would be a better target. I would suggest the redirect be changed to that. - Dyork (talk) 22:31, 2 March 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 10:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created redirect from page move to reverse a typographical error. It is unlikely to be directly searched for given Spider-Man (Miles Morales) already exists. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like many other implausible, mis-spaced parentheticals (example RfD). I was considering nominating this for speedy deletion as WP:R3 (a recent typo or misnomer), but typographical error would have us believe typo[graphical error] doesn't refer to intentional things. I nominated the other resulting redirect, Spider-Man(Miles Morales), as a WP:G6 given the user said that that one was an error. SilverLocust💬 21:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also considered marking it for speedy deletion although I recently was informed of some technicalities in doing so that made me skeptical of it, so I felt more confident taking it here for a more formal process. Glad to see there's a common understanding here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with others that this an implausible redirect. - Dyork (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel(talk) 01:19, 3 March 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. Jay 💬 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Ahem*, None of the pages listed at the DAB DAB page go by the name of "DAB page". Wikipedia has it's own definition of DAB page but its unclear whether this DAB page is higher priority than the page for DAB, which doesn't contain any usage of "DAB page". The page part of DAB page may cause confusion with its inclusion. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it could arguably be a XNR but we generally don't have them unless it can be discussed in an article about Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the merits of this redirect yet (I've not researched it), we do XNRs in more than just that one scenario. For example we use them when the term is unambiguous with anything that is or is likely to be encyclopaedic (e.g. Checkuser, Three revert rule)) or the target is one that it is important that users unfamiliar with the concept of namespaces are able to find easily (e.g. Wiki testing page, Article wizard, Wikipedia help). Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages (as a {{R avoided double redirect}}ofDisambiguation page) or Wikipedia:Glossary#Disambiguation page (if the latter I'd suggest retargetting the full title to the glossary too). I'm finding absolutely no encyclopaedic uses of this term so nobody looking for an article is going to end up here, meaning most of the typical reasons for avoiding XNRs don't apply. Given how common a term this is on Wikipedia it is very likely that people will be searching for it, including very new editors. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 10:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no justification for a cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A cross-namespace redirect would be inappropriate and this is not a plausible search term. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of proposed targets WP:Disambiguation and WP:Glossary. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Implausible as is, and not a plausible WP:XNR search term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bar for cross-namespace redirects should be high and I don't expect someone to be searching for an article about wikipedia disambig pages by non-obvious acronym. If you know to search for this, you know to look in WP namespace. Rusalkii (talk) 06:38, 9 March 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.
Old news, but kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberEmotions in 2013, then redirected to current target (which doesn't and apparently has never mentioned the CyberEmotions project by name) in 2014. The reason for not restoring the article has now been explainedasspammy article on ephemeral project, so I'd suggest deleting the redirect. Belbury (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If it does end up notable in the future somehow, it would deserve its own article. As it stands, it's non-notable and doesn't appear at the target, which... also means we should delete.Restore and send to AfD as per voorts and Thryduulf's comments below. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper the above.Restore and send to AfD, per voorts and Thryduulf. This is indeed the wrong forum. Disclosure: I redirected the article back in 2014, saving the content in case this, against all expectations, would generate more coverage after being closed in 2013. The earlier "keep" decision was based on an AfD with minimal participation. The project began in 2009 and ended in 2013 without leaving much trace. It's homepage is (not surprisingly for a project that was closed in 2013) a dead link. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AfD. RfD should definitely not be deleting article content whose most recent discussion ended in keep. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 3 March 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.
For one, it is kind of bizarre that these redirects to not all redirect to the same target. In addition, I'm kind of surprised that there's no standalone subject for these redirects; apparently, a couple of these redirects had stub quality articles that were moved to Wiktionary in the 2007-ish. With all that being said, unless these redirects are deleted, I would have expected to see something about these redirects in the article Supply and demand, but it does not seem as though the subjects are mentioned in that article at all; these subjects also do not seem to be mentioned at all in their current target articlesare mentioned at Competition (economics)#Role in market success. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated rationale. Apparently, I didn't see it before. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per REDLINK. I'm surprised we don't have articles on these already. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 02:47, 2 March 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 double redirect bot changed the target because of Special:Diff/572922598, which was reverted 12 minutes later but still 10 minutes too late. The nominated redirect's title appears to be related to the 2002 vanity license plate application mentioned in the "In popular culture" section, which only mentions, "the applicant wrote a different meaning for 'MILF' than what he intended". PleaseStand (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like it wasn't a bot goof - rather, it appears to be related to the GOTMILF vanity license plate goof from 2002 [1][2] (also got a single secondary mention in 2014 [3]) - anywho, 'Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator' was used as the excuse to get away with the 'MILF' in this vanity plate. Chances are that anyone who does look up 'Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator' probably is expecting to be redirected to 'MILF' anyway (given the context), but idk what the threshold for keeping a redirect is. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 03:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoMILF#In popular culture as per HOTmess. The section currently does list "Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator" as the excuse the applicant gave. Alternately, if anyone can find a different target (i.e. something that could actually be described as a 'manual inline lift fluctuator'), retarget to that instead. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:24, 2 March 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 March 12#Associated Press Service
