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 keep. Nominated under the assumption that the redirect makes no sense, but it was found very quickly to not be nonsense. Thus, cue WP:CSK#3: No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:GOT → Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know what GOT is, and if everyone can't explain it, I should delete it. Q28 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• GOT refers to Game of Thrones (TV series) which is an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - GOT is a standard abbreviation for "Game of Thrones", the name of the first book of the series and also of the T.V. series that was created from the books. Fans often refer to the series as the Game of Thrones or GOT series, even though the official title of the series is "A Song of Ice and Fire". The official title is a mouthful, while the 1st book/TV series title is catchy, descriptive, and easier to say. Fieari (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fieari. The nom already got an explanation. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Swap redirect with board game page. After I finish the swap, I will then retarget the redirect to the board game's article and add a hat to Kapoor. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ark Nova → Anish Kapoor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Ark Nova (board game) or change to disambig? Right now, it points to a biography of an artist whose concert was named Ark Nova, a rather borderline meaning. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We only have one article titled Ark Nova. Move Ark Nova (board game) to the base title and add a hatnote pointing to Anish Kapoor#Architectural projects. - Eureka Lott 14:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Eureka Lott Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to redirect name per Eureka Lott --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus / retarget to List of murdered American children#1980s. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Aroostook County Jane Doe → List of unidentified murder victims in the United States#Aroostook County Jane Doe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Thanks to overzealous trimming of the target page, this now leads nowhere. This case is recently back in the news, so maybe a proper article is in order. Or at least an entry at the target. Sumanuil. 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Content was removed from the target article due to the core policy of WP:No original research. Not convinced that this is a notable topic warranting inclusion in that list or in its own article. As such, there is no need for a redirect. Routine news coverage does not make a topic encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. We need evidence from secondary and tertiary sources other than the media to prove notability. Further Aroostook County has multiple Jane Does in their cold case files stretching back decades, so the naming of this topic is problematic. 4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who removed the target section. Does anyone not involved in this mess have an opinion? Also, if anything in "the media" doesn't count as a secondary source, then 99% of Wikipedia is OR. And WP:NOTNEWS does not invalidate the use of news outlets as sources. Sumanuil. 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanuil This is not the place to have this discussion as it is only tangentially related to dealing with this redirect. I am happy to discuss the issues with you on the relevant talk page, but please do not de-rail this nomination with side issues. The use of news sources on Wikipedia is permissible, but should be done with following the policies at WP:Verifiability, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:SUSTAINED. In this instance, the topic lacked multiple independent secondary sources as required by those policies, and the use of those sources (some primary sources in addition to one secondary reference) was pieced together in a way that violated the no original research policy on wikipedia (i.e. original synthesis). If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at Talk:List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Not right now, though. Maybe later. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Sumanuil. 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it's not at the target then there is no reason for the redirect to exist. If this jane doe stuff gets added back to the target then we can bring back this redirect. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of murdered American children#1980s. 12,000 pageviews in the last 7 years. No reason to delete if we can provide some information for the reader to go forward. Jay (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of murdered American children#1980s for now, and delink there. I don't generally like redirecting to lists that are clearly developed as being limited to entries with blue links, but it does lead anyone searching this term to the page on enwiki with the most pertinent content. The current target isn't really appropriate anymore because the victim is no longer truly "unidentified" as the mother of the newborn was recently identified. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AccessIRC → Internet Relay Chat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Routesplit → Template:BSsplit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as unused; appears to be an abandoned experiment. Useddenim (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Absatz-L → Template:Clear left  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a German redirect. We don't need the impact of other languages. Q28 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's only transcluded on one article, Hochwildstelle, which it seems to have been translated from German on 17 February 2016, and then this template was created on that same day. It seems like this should be deleted and be replaced in its one transclusion by ((clear left)), policy wise: delete per WP:RLOTE. TartarTorte 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Agree with TartarTorte's logic, but for future reference the nom's sweeping rationale for deletion "we don't want the impact of other languages" is inappropriate, doesn't chime with Wiki policy such as WP:RLOTE and is potentially offensive. Other languages have a firm place in English Wikipedia, but their use should be appropriate and that has been long recognised. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good point. Non-english redirects certainly do have their place. TartarTorte 19:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Plug Entertainment → Davido Music Worldwide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Found this page with an invalid tag for speedy deletion per G7. Not mentioned at the target; it was there but removed from the page due to being false and unsourced. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Reading through the "split" rationales, most seem to align with the reasoning of "delete to encourage article creation", even if the !vote itself is distinct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• El Fantasma (wrestler) → Santos Escobar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• El Fantasma (luchador) → Santos Escobar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion. Not the subject. El Fantasma is another wrestler, the father of Santos Escobar. El Fantasma is notable for his own article.. Also nominating El Fantasma (wrestler) HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added "El Fantasma (wrestler)" which wasn't nominated initially by the nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into new article. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split if El Fantasma is notable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the Split, the article only mentions El Fantasma once (His father was a professional wrestler, known as the enmascarado "El Fantasma"). I would prefer the deletion to encourage the article creation, as Lentice said. Sadly, Mexican lucha libre is not my field. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't split Keep until article is made - If El Fantasma is notable enough for his own article, then I'm pretty sure the RfD process in not necessary-- just replace the redirect with a new article. But at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough in the Santos Escobar article to support simply splitting it, and no one has proposed a draft for a new article. Again, if you write a new article, and it is supported with reliable sources establishing notability, I think the normal WP:BRD process is fine for just replacing the redirect with your new article. Until then, I see nothing wrong with leaving the status quo... there is a mention, however brief, in the target article, and that's enough for now. On the other hand, I see the argument for deleting the redirect to encourage someone to try writing the article... I have no real preference here. Changing my !vote to merely voicing my objection to splitting as is... either deletion or keeping makes sense to me. Fieari (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and draftify ...is that an option? There's not enough material for a standalone article right now, but having a draft in place seems like it could be a good way to signal that the subject has potential and attract people to work on expanding it, whereas deletion might just cause it to be forgotten. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and avoid the potential confusion arising from the redirecting of wrestler El Fantasma to wrestler "The Son of El Fantasma". Draft:El Fantasma (wrestler) will be a good start for the draft, and clicking the redlink at El Fantasma (wrestler) will indicate that there is a draft in progress. Jay (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strumigenys longamaxilla → Strumigenys ayersthey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created as a result of cleanup of page move vandalism at the target page by User:Longamaxilla back in January this year. This user has since been indefinitely blocked as a Vandalism-only account. (The redirect's given page creator, Daniel Mietchen, was actually one of the ones reverting the vandalism) In any case, the name "Strumigenys longamaxilla" has never been used for a species in a scientific publication, and the fact the target page was involved in the first place especially suggests it was an attempt at "correcting" a name honoring an LGBT activist (or the user could be a troll, doesn't make much difference anyway). Therefore I strongly suggest to delete the redirect as there is no value in keeping it for these reasons.

Relevant talk pages for context, if it helps:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 4#Vandalism via pseudo-nomenclatural change
• User talk:Daniel Mietchen/Archive 49#Strumigenys_ayersthey
• Talk:Strumigenys ayersthey

(I actually originally nominated this redirect for speedy deletion under WP:G3, but I guess I incorrectly assumed others could figure out the context from the edit history and linked pages... oh well) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unambiguously a made-up name introduced with intent to be disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given by nom. Wikipedia is not for things made up on one day just to spite non-binary individuals... —QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotted Caribbean stingray → Urolophidae#Urolophus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not clear what species this refers to. Not mentioned on any Wikipedia page. Possibly an undescribed species present in the aquarium hobbyist trade. Search engines bring up pages that say this is Urolophus halleri, which doesn't occur in the Caribbean, and Chinese websites that associate this name and Urolophus aurantiacus, which also isn't present in the Caribbean. Plantdrew (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the nom demonstrated that it does primarily refer to Urolophus species. Common names do not have to be factually correct. For instance, electric eels are not eels. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 1st google search result says this is the common name for Urolophus: [1]. Here's another page suggesting it as well: [2]. Here's the Chinese site I presume the nominator found: [3]. I also found a number of other pages that refer to a "spotted caribbean stingray" without giving a scientific name at all, but the picture they use looks like it matches. All this is enough to strongly suggest that this redirect is valid, and the name should probably be added to the article as well. I fear the slight possibility of citogenesis, but my intuition says that's not what is happening here. Fieari (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.