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 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has already caused me some confusion. I can only assume that this started as a mixup of their two last names, but on top of that, Anna becomes Alan in the redirect. Delete per WP:R#D2 to prevent anyone else from going down a confusing rabbit hole. -2pou (talk) 22:31, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per criterion G2 (test page), and per WP:SNOW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was made with a script and "$1" is a variable in the scripting language. The creator has made many redirects with this script but obviously something went wrong with this one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 8 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reason for this redirect to target that particular page, because controversies over GM organisms go far beyond just controversies over GM foods. There is no single page that this redirect is particularly appropriate for; there are numerous equally plausible targets in Category:Genetically modified organisms in agriculture and Category:Anti-GMO movement. This redirect resulted from undoing an inappropriate page move by a misguided student editor; details are at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. The exact wording is not a particularly plausible search term, and it's probably best to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom basically summed up my thoughts on this too, so I don't have much to add to the redirect not really have a good home. I agree with Ivanvector there's a case for WP:R3 here too given the history of how the page came to be with a student editor moving the GM food controversies page to the more general title here (thereby creating it). KoA (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a sensible target at Genetically modified organism#Controversy, but the construction makes it a weak search term (search is case insensitive) and useless as a link in article editing. ― Synpath 14:45, 7 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural renomination. For context, this redirect was nominated yesterday, but that discussion was closed early due to a speedy deletion that has now been undone. The page previously at this title (which had article history) was moved without a redirecttoUndead (Yoasobi song) after being undeleted, and I recreated a redirect from this title. This is a procedural nomination only, I do not personally wish for this redirect to be deleted.
Pinging participants in the previous RfD, and the previous page's creator (given that they were notified about the previous RfD on their talk page): PepeBonus, CycloneYoris, KjjjKjjj. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 19:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator and recreator) I believe that this redirect should be kept, as I believe that putting the name of the song in quotation marks is a plausible mistake, and - in any event - unambiguous and cheap. Song articles on Wikipedia start with the name of the song wrapped in quotes (which is also how links to such articles are formatted on disambiguation pages); so, to me, it's reasonable to think that a reader could type a song's title with quotation marks when looking for information about that song (as evidenced by the fact that the article was created at this title). I don't believe that any of the reasons for deleting a redirect apply in this instance (hence why I recreated this title as an {{R from move}}). All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should we go around creating a redirect for every single song? I don't think we should be disambiguating song articles with the name in quotation marks just because that's how we refer to them in the lead. Note: It's technically not necessary for songs without disambiguating parenthesis (typing in "Rolling in the Deep", including the quotes, into the search box will take you directly to the article for example. Adam Blacktalk • contributions 18:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to create a redirect like this for every song; just that (in my opinion) the ones that are created aren't problematic, and therefore don't warrant deletion. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 10:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obvious error, no need for keeping. CycloneYoristalk! 22:06, 13 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was created in October 2022. I'm proposing deletion, as - like the nomination below this one - this rcat-redirect is potentially ambiguous: a redirect to a publisher is not necessarily a redirect from a creative work.
Unlike the nomination listed below, this redirect has been to RfD before; with a discussion that did not receive comments other than from the nominator and the page creator, and which resulted in a 'no consensus' close. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 16:17, 29 April 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) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessarily ambiguous, but there's no guarantee or expectation that the tagged redirect will be from a "work", leaving the current target erroneous. Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 7 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was created in September 2023. I'm proposing deletion, as a potentially ambiguous rcat-redirect. A redirect to an artist is not necessarily a redirect from a creative work, and I'm not aware of a more appropriate rcat template that this could be retargeted to. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 16:01, 29 April 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) 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirects to an artist could also be from, say, an art style or artistic movement, or an artistic period of their life. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessarily ambiguous, but there's no guarantee or expectation that the tagged redirect will be from a "work", leaving the current target erroneous. Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 7 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).
Category:Television series by CBS Television Studios[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 14:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A TV episode for a program not on Wikipedia, and not discussed at the hosting show article either. Not currently a helpful redirect for people interested in this topic, as it would otherwise not exist for people that read the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:46, 26 April 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) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it's marked {{R with history}}, it seems that none of its content has been reused in the target article (it never mentioned this show specifically), thus it is not required to maintain the history. And since there is no content on this topic at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia, it should not be a redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No character called undertow at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:30, 26 April 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) 14:49, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This competition has zero to do with the redirect target. Bgsu98(Talk) 23:30, 28 April 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) 14:42, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"entoptic" refers to things in eyes. it's not necessarily "psychedelic", as it can (probably) refer to anything that can be seen. "entopic" isn't the right word either, as it refers to things that are in their usual places cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:24, 29 April 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) 14:42, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was keep. --Tavix(talk) 02:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLarissa Hodge, we have information on this person and it's found at this target. It doesn't matter that it's very little information - this is what we have and that's where it is. Delete the others as they are unsourced alternates and nicknames and also not described at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Larissa Hodge is shown as her contestant name Bootz which is referred to as Larissa Aurora in another section of the article. So I'm not on board with the logic of keeping one but not the other. Jay 💬 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:59, 24 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, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just delete all of them per Jay. Okmrman (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I didn't have an opinion for or against Delete. Jay 💬 08:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. It's unclear what the status of all these names are, but anyone looking for them will find them mentioned at the current target and nowhere better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 8 June 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 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Rail", "Sim" or "Pro" at the target article. Was redirected here after a 2015 AfD as an "obvious alternative to AfD", but this topic seems to have never been discussed at the target before, and certainly not after. Not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:34, 25 April 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) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to Fandom this was a planned release expected to reinvent the Trainz series after Trainz Railroad Simulator 2006. Instead the developer went belly-up and sold the rights to the series to N3V, who then continued publishing several more Trainz titles. We have no information on this game and the redirect should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was formerly a disambiguation page consisting only of two redlinks. The now-defunct Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs redirected it instead of asking for G14. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS lists four "Huntingtons" in South Carolina in Cherokee, Richland, Sumter and Laurens counties. Which one was the deleted item? Vsmith (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Or which were the two redlinks? Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: in this case the page wasn't deleted so you can see what it was in the page history. See this revision for what was on the page before it was turned into a redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an exercise, I drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect, listing the cities where the various Huntingtons can be found according to GNIS (I only found three Huntingtons in South Carolina). However, my !vote is to delete (and also delete Huntington, South Carolina (disambiguation)) - other than this dab page identifying them, we have no information on Wikipedia about any of the Huntingtons, neither on the city pages nor on the county pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If not one, but two of those neighborhoods were to get pages created, then this could be created as a dab page at that time, but as it stands, none of them have pages, so there isn't a real redirect target to go to. - 2pou (talk) 20:36, 13 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Ross" or "Rachel" at the target singer's page, but also no mention at Jake Miller discography either. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:20, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an alternate language version of exhibitionism, not mentioned at the target, and with no strong association to the target outside of what would be expected of WP:RLANG. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:22, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web search indicates this is a computer game where the main character is an exhibitionist. A red link seems preferable here. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my search (which I inadvisedly did at work) came up with similar results to Presidentman. It could be a Japanese synonym but the topic is not especially Japanese, otherwise it's a non-notable erotica game. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of RTV News at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:29, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Bangladeshi network RTV (Bangladeshi TV channel) operates a Youtube channel called "RTV News", but I don't see any evidence of any corporation with this name. I don't understand the link to Paramount and the earlier discussion doesn't help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. only found several wikia entries and listings in my GSearch. Apparently it is a CBS Corporation subsidiary. --Lenticel(talk) 00:38, 7 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of a "scary sharp" method of sharpening at the title. The word "scary" does not appear at the target, and the only time "sharp" appears is in the form of "sharpening", but nothing about a "sharp" on it's own. Non-notable technique which was BLAR'd this time last year. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:48, 25 April 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) 14:22, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientific" is only said once in the lead, and "sexism" only appears once in the body, both in entirely different situations. While listed as an alternative name, there is nothing in the article to indicate that this is the case, and there seems like there'd be other sexism articles that this could refer to, as there are also mentions of "scientific" at sexism as well. Seems as if this is an otherwise ambiguous term that has a lot of possibilities due to the lack of clarity between "science" and "sexism". Utopes(talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 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) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably could become its own separate page in the future. Okmrman (talk) 13:34, 10 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Targets the manufacturers section, but solowheel is not listed as a manufacturer of electric unicycles at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:50, 25 April 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) 14:21, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this word at the target, although it's pointed here since 2012. Perhaps a wiktionary redirect would be more appropriate? Not sure if there are other encyclopedic topics where this title could be a shoo-in.... :) Utopes(talk / cont) 04:36, 25 April 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) 14:16, 6 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.
Neither Opera mail nor "OperaMail" are mentioned at the target, much less its supposed .com domain. This domain currently exists on the web as a redirect to opera dot com, and as for Wikipedia, without a mention of operamail this does not seem to be the most helpful currently. (Even if it's a mail site that was acquired by Opera from 2010 to 2013. Notably, this redirect was created in 2011 when the "opera" description was accurate, but Fastmail became independent again very shortly after and has been so for the last decade.) Utopes(talk / cont) 01:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 07:03, 27 April 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) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've bundled Operamail.com as there's been no votes and it should have the same outcome, I believe (pinging Utopes). Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoOpera Mail if they are related, delete otherwise. Jay 💬 09:14, 14 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Nutrient" at the target page. Was created as a redirect without mention at the target. Afterward, the creator proceeded to link this term in the See Also sections of high profile pages that had very stringent connections to the "Recovery and Reuse of Nutrients". Seems to be an effort to establish notoriety to this term, which appears nowhere on Wikipedia in an academic context, sans the randomly piped See Also mentions. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 07:04, 27 April 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) 14:13, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existing thing, ctrl + f shows no mention about this. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:25, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Facility is a bit of a stretch since it's more like a rooftop tent used by the bad guys in Resident Evil: Extinction. --Lenticel(talk) 08:30, 7 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't called like this, but Umbrella Corp only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:30, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article. At this point, the only article that mentions this phrase is Kaz Firpo, but that may not be appropriate since apparently, the subject of this redirect also has a connection to the subject Ridley Scott; in other words, delete per WP:REDYES. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per red link Okmrman (talk) 03:17, 10 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.
The result of the discussion was delete , for all the reasons mentioned, and because the page was created by blocked editor Zhmailik while evading blocks. JBW (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any evidence that such an album was ever planned to exist. There is a single of the same name, but I don't see any sources claiming an album under this name was ever meant to be released. Doesn't seem like much point in keeping a redirect for something that isn't real. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:23, 29 April 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) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete criterion G3. The creator is a sockpuppet of a vandal known for creating false pages about nonexistent music. This can be presumed to be another of their hoaxes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okmrman just nominated this for G3 deletion. I assume we can that to count as a vote of support for this discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:18, 12 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this singular joke-line from the show at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoPerry the Platypus. I'm normally a stickler for WP:DABMENTION and WP:R#D8, but I think it's good enough that 1) in context, the phrase is unambiguously referring to Perry, 2) there's really no other sensible target for it, and 3) the phrase does appear in the show, rather than being some WP:MADEUP neologism. --NYKevin 01:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about this, though, is that there's basically a different variation of name every episode, and none of which are discussed at the proposed target (no mention of a plumber version of Perry). There's whole compilations of the different outcries, and I don't think we'd need Perry the Banjo-Playing Platypus either. Is basically a single-use gag, and such types of single-use gag redirects are unlikely to be useful. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and look through the creator's other redirects, they're also mostly oddly specific phineas and ferb lines cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 12:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 09:41, 29 April 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) 14:06, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too nonspecific. There was a time at RfD (I recall 2015-ish) when we had many discussions about redirects that fit this description: often made by a character-substituting bot, they were strings of characters from different languages which actually made no sense at all, they just looked plausible, and it was common to write them off as mojibake. It's not exactly right to say that the resulting titles were "unintelligible" - you could tell what they were supposed to be, they just ... weren't that. Except that occasionally they really were gibberish. But an "unintelligible sequence of characters" could be pretty much anything, so I think it would be better for a reader to see search results for this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 6 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.
I'm not sure about this. The redirect used to be an article, blanked and redirected by @Tintero21:, but targeted at Roman emperor rather than Holy Roman Emperor which seems to me a better target (or, at least, uses the expression more). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoImperator. Roman emperors did occasionally use this specific title. Although imperator was originally a title given to victorious generals until the early empire, the emperors later used it alongside various other titles titles such as princeps, augustus, caesar, dominusorbasileus. The article Imperator discusses the nuances of this term, and also mentions its use in the Holy Roman Empire and other post-Roman states. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toHoly Roman Emperor. As described there, Imperator Romanorum is the title, or part of the title, they used from Charlemagne on. It's true that Romans sometimes called leaders imperator, and it became one of the titles of Augustus and his successors, but it was unnecessary to specify that as Romanorum until much later. NebY (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to "Holy Roman Emperor" per NebY. If Imperator Romanorum was used by the Holy Roman emperors, it makes a logical target; the Roman emperors didn't need to say who they were emperors of, since they were the original ones, and no others were invented until Charlemagne. The existing hatnote is sufficient to get people to "Roman emperor" if that's where they meant to go. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to "Holy Roman Emperor" per NebY. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a redirect to HRE would make more sense now that I think of it. I doubt anyone would use or look for that exact expression thinking about Ancient Rome. Tintero21 (talk) 03:58, 8 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "lax" or a lax team at the target, inferred from history. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We mention they have a facility that they use for lacrosse a regulation-size field for men's and women's soccer which also can be used for other sports such as lacrosse and they do have both men and women's lacrosse. So improving the article would be fine; but there's no reason to delete this redirect even as-is. Skynxnex (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted by nominator, "lax" isn't mentioned at target. Also, Scranton is a big place with a population of over 76,000. It's conceivable there might be other lacrosse teams and players, at one of the secondary schools or in one of the 8 other higher education establishments in the city. Only 5 pageviews in the past 90 days, all of which seem to be after this RfD was opened, so it's not a commonly searched term. Adam Blacktalk • contributions 12:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for those like me that didn't get it, "lax" is short for lacrosse. The only mention of lacrosse at the target, and not in the target section, is that one of their sports fields can also be used for lacrosse, which is a bit like mentioning in an article on a highway that it can also be used for cars to drive on. It's not useful information for a reader looking for information on this school's lacrosse activities. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 6 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.
No mention of this former cult member at the target article, in any form, it seems. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is actually mentioned. According to CBS News this was Chuck Humphrey's cult name. Humphrey is mentioned here. I could add a mention this was his name in the group, if you'd like? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep if a cited mention was added to the article. --Lenticel(talk) 06:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I'm fine if you add a cited mention of the cult name in the article. Lenticel(talk) 06:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel Did. Sorry it took me a few days, I've been quite busy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 13 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.
The result of the discussion was restore and AfD. Jay 💬 05:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic not discussed at the target page, as "supple" nor "supplement" ever appear at the target page. Was BLAR'd in 2017 as being based on almost entirely unreliable sources, but does not serve its purpose as a good redirect if there is no content to be read about this at PageRank. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google's Supplemental Results (technically still there - just not labeled as such) were not relevant to an article about the PageRank algorithm. Technically, the Supplemental Results are all the low-value content for which Google makes room available in its index, but they're not likely to be selected for competitive (high-interest) queries. Nor are the pages likely to be recrawled or refreshed very often. The only real connection anyone from Google ever confirmed was that these types of pages usually had very little PageRank. It would be more appropriate to redirect the page to the article about Google and add something there, assuming a suitable resource could be found (probably one of Danny Sullivan's articles from Search Engine Land from around 2006-2010). Michael Martinez (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with nominator. Not context to be seen. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus here is too weak to delete article history at RfD. Restore and send to AfD. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:01, 26 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.
The result of the discussion was Delete Jay's argument has gone unrefuted by all subsequent commenters * Pppery *it has begun... 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes(talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 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) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there were incoming links, wikt would have been a useful target. Jay 💬 14:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete? Retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay, doesn't feel like a common enough term that would justify a soft redirect. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per points already raised. Does not seem necessary to redirect to wikt, and almost definitely used on more than just this one website. Adam Blacktalk • contributions 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Jay. I know it's a semi-common term in Facebook groups but this isn't there and there are no incoming links. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 7 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.
The result of the discussion was Keep Supercops and Delete the others * Pppery *it has begun... 19:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both "Supercops vs Supervillains" redirects, which are perfectly plausible search terms. No opinion on the others for now. CycloneYoristalk! 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed. But miscapitalization is not that big of a deal, and not enough reason to warrant deletion. That is why {{R from miscapitalisation}} exists. CycloneYoristalk! 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can certainly be deleted, since they do seem quite odd and badly formatted. CycloneYoristalk! 07:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the other 4 redirects? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSuperCops vs Supervillains and Supercops vs Supervillains and tag as "R from miscapitalisation". Delete the rest per nom. --Lenticel(talk) 02:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two with Supercops and SuperCops, delete the other 4 per above. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:36, 11 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.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 09:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on LadybugStardust's findings? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see how they're ambigious.★Trekker (talk) 20:49, 10 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in main article Australian Greens. Not a plausible search term, appears to be an attempt at a POV-fork. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section this pointed to was removed just two days ago, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It may be better to wait until consensus is reached on whether or not to include this content before having an RfD. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: Wait for the talk page discussion to finish. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, it's not mention in the article and I doubt that it will be back given that the sourcing was a bunch of op-eds from politicians opposed to this particular party. That's unless some sourcing can be found from academic sources which are subject matter experts, which I highly doubt. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete, or wait for the talk page discussion to end? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ended. One editor proposed inserting poorly sourced content, two editors opposed. There's been no further discussion in four days. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, talk page discussion ended and no mention in article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the talk page discussion has concluded, and consensus is against including this content. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 16:05, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Ruby on Яails, this is another typo (from Eubot), so I also suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnatural misspelling, gets 1-2 views per month. Air on White (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to post this for the similar nomination today, my bad. This one actually got 0 views in the past 90 days. Air on White (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Eubot often did that. I thought we had made a speedy criterion for them similar to WP:X1 for Neelix redirects, but maybe it was just something that was discussed a lot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much a textbook instance of a unnatural typo (the creator wrote in their edit summary "someone lock this so Willy can't do anything bad" though), so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 04:04, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect targets a section that doesn't exist. Also, "virtual technology" is not the same thing as "technology" in general. I would guess that a more useful place to point this to would be something like ComputingorVirtual worldorVirtual reality or similar. However, this phrase also seems inherently vague so I would understand it if anyone !voted for a delete. Duckmather (talk) 04:02, 6 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Stars and planetary systems in fiction
Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect of this discussion. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
