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! 06:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cardiovascular disease and saturated fat → Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Saturated fat and heart disease → Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:XY Mdewman6 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The target is a section describing the relationship between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. I do not see how WP:XY applies here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a bit XY-ish because there is also discussion of the relationship between the two topics at Cardiovascular disease#Diet, so there is discussion of the combination in two places. Sure, there are section hatnotes between them which helps alleviate XY concerns, but how do we determine which section to target? I guess we should follow X and Y -> X#Y? If so, perhaps retarget the first and keep the second? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense if they have the same target, and I don't see any particular reason to retarget to the section you mentioned. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These aren't unconnected subjects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2023 (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 23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Arterycloggingsaturatedfat → Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We should not have redirects from search terms with no spaces. We do not have the correct form of this redirect, Artery clogging saturated fat. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Could come under WP:R3 if it wasn't so old. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk]

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only way this might be plausible is if we assume the reader's spacebar is broken; I don't think we need spaceless redirects just in case. – Scyrme (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2023 (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 keep. Withdrawing per talk page consensus and to preserve article history; hatnotes at target can address the WP:XY issue (non-admin closure) Mdewman6 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease → Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Case of WP:XY; both topics are discussed at target, but likewise there is discussion about saturated fat at Cardiovascular disease#Diet, where this redirect is used in a section hatnote. We should not direct all users to one section or the other; instead delete the redirect and directly link to each section from each section in hatnotes. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2023 (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 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Polysaturated fat → Saturated fat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Polysaturated fats → Saturated fat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are polyunsaturated fats, but there are no such things as polysaturated fats. Delete to avoid confusion; in fact I just corrected cases in several nutrition/health articles that had "polysaturated" when they appeared to mean "polyunsaturated". Mdewman6 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an old one-sentence stub at the plural form. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as they are, they are not reasonable redirects. The only way as a ((R from misspelling)) or ((R from typo)) would work, would be to target polyunsaturated fats . So either delete or retarget to polyunsaturated fatty acid as a misspelling/typo of "polyunsaturated fat(s)" -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no mention anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The proper target isn't clear because it's ambiguous whether someone would be searching "polysaturated fats" because they've misspelled "polyunsaturated fats" or because they're unfamiliar with the terms and are looking for the saturated counterpart of "polyunsaturated fats" under the assumption that saturated and unsaturated fats both have poly- varieties. The redirect is more likely confuse readers/editors rather than help, especially if internal links show up in blue as if it's a correct a term. – Scyrme (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2023 (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 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Homosexuality legal in Brazil → Legal status of homosexuality in Brazil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is phrased like a search query or part of a question, "Is homosexuality legal in Brazil?" The closest it gets to resembling a title is if it's read like a newspaper headline announcing legalisation. Since it's not phrased like an article title or topic, perhaps the search engine should handle it; it's what it's for. – Scyrme (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:52, 28 August 2023 (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 💬 19:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Boo: The ghost → Characters in the Mario franchise#Enemy characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely unlikely search term. This barely gets used. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is indeed a character named "Boo" who is a ghost, but the combination of colon use, capitalization, and 3 words used seems unlikely to me. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible phrasing. Created as a vandalism/spam article in 2007 and redirected that same year. I wouldn't object to creating more plausibly phrased redirects like Boo the ghost or Boo the Ghost, if others feel their existence is warranted. – Scyrme (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search term per the above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sergecross73 and Scyrme. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (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 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mario's First Love Interest → Characters in the Mario franchise#Pauline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very unlikely search term. The redirect is barely ever used. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's "very" unlikely. It seems plausible to me that readers may forget Pauline's name and try to look her up as "Mario's first love interest". The most unlikely thing about this is redirect is the capitalisation. Mario's first love interest seems more plausible and there are webpages that describe her in this exact way. – Scyrme (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this character actually has an entire article not just a list entry: Pauline (Nintendo). That article mentions that "Pauline debuted as Mario's love interest". – Scyrme (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term, and Wikipedia is not a search engine. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2023 (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 💬 19:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Young Toadsworth → Characters in the Mario franchise#Toadsworth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term that is barely used as a redirect. Also, the topic is only implicitly mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing more than an allusion to the younger days of an older character. No idea why someone would ever search for that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nonsensical. Veverve (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2023 (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 💬 19:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoshi Demo → Yoshi's Story#Game Boy Advance tech demo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too ambiguous. Yoshi's Crafted World has a demo available, which takes up many of the Google search results. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What it's referring to, in reality, is an interesting footnote in the Yoshi series of games. But the phrase "Yoshi Demo" is too vague to refer to it, more specific redirects should be used instead. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 28 August 2023 (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 retarget both to Zhangzhung. Jay 💬 19:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Zhang-zhung → Zhangzhung  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Zhang-Zhung → Zhang-Zhung language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should have the same target. The kingdom is probably the primary topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Zhangzhung. The language is also described there with a link to the main article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Zhangzhung per nom. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and move language article to Zhangzhung language, its Glottolog name, for consistency. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter should be discussed through a WP:RM (if that needs discussion). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:09, 30 August 2023 (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 retarget to Steve Buscemi#Reception and image. Jay 💬 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you do, fellow kids? → The Tuxedo Begins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention on target page. The point of the redir is that a phrase from an Internet meme originates from this TV episode, but without a mention at target it's unlikely to be useful. A user who wants info about the meme's origin should browse KnowYourMeme rather than Wikipedia. Gaioa (T C L) 11:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Steve Buscemi#Reception and image, where the meme is described. It does not use these words but it's not ambiguous. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ivanvector's points. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:33, 28 August 2023 (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. Jay 💬 11:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Have sex with → Sexual intercourse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominating for the same reason Having sex with was deleted: redirect was only made to fix a redlink, and non-printworthy sounding title. Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlikely search term. 〜 Askarion ✉ 11:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since "have sex with" is a common phrase and thus a likely search term, and the views are quite strong (at 2 or 3 per day). Duckmather (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirect is directly used in two articles, and it seems to be entirely unambiguous. Nothing harmful in this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a common phrase but context-dependent; any uses of the phrase in an article should be piped to the intended target, not have vague, sentence-fragment redirects created for one of several possible uses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This seems to be a slightly different scenario than "having sex with" in terms of being a redirect, although it could be the same. I don't think that the phrase "Have sex with" is necessarily incomplete; it can very well be a complete search term describing the verb/action of "fuck". It is very common imo to include the word "with" following the action of "having sex", and I do think that the phrase "have sex with" is more closely equivalent to "sexual intercourse" (the current target) than even the term "have sex" is (without the "with"). The act to "have sex with" I feel is exactly what sexual intercourse is. Oftentimes a word like "with" doesn't fit at the end of a title, but in this particular case I think the phrase "have sex with" is inexplicably linked with "sexual intercourse" word-for-word. (This was quite a silly explanation I will admit, lol. Truly a contribution of time.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no policy-based reason to delete. To "have sex with" means to "have sexual intercourse with". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2023 (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 restored article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Chip Gaines → Fixer Upper (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this would be better targeted at Joanna Gaines as ((R from spouse)) because that article contains more substantive information about him than the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think he should have his own page restored rather than redirect at all. He has a long career, bestselling books, etc., much (though of course not all) of which is separate and distinct from his wife. This is on my to-do list if no one else does so. Sneakers2929 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per Sneakers2929. It seems plausible that Chip Gaines is notable on his own terms. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore – since the article was redirected at AFD in 2017, I think the notability concerns have been resolved. I can get a few additional pieces of news coverage in to clear notability guidelines tomorrow, though I'm not great with biographies. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (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 criterion R3. Clearly created in error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Europe's Strongest Man champions → Template:Europe's Strongest Man champions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No internal or external links as the redirect was made automatically due to a namespace change from article to template Brandon Downes (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (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 04:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1834 edition → Gustav Leberecht Flügel#Works, Translations, Critical Essays and Articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expression is way too vague, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurdly vague. This can refer to any written thing in Category:1834 works and multiple events linked from 1834 in sports. Needless to say, that a lot of articles. Glades12 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep in the absence of a better target. The term "1834 edition" refers rather unambiguously to an edition of the Quran published by Flügel in 1834, unambiguous in the sense that there aren't other works likely to be known by this name. It is mentioned very briefly in the Quran article, and even more briefly in identical text in both Cairo edition and History of the Quran, but there's so little content I don't think any of these are a better target than the current one. There is also an edition of Phillis Wheatley's poetry, considered the first published poetry by an African-American author, which was re-published as a memoir in 1834, but that's also hardly mentioned in her bio and I don't think that's a better target anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sure, in the context of editions of the Quran 1834 edition may refer unambiguously to Flügel's edition, but in other contexts it refers equally unambiguously to 1834 editions of other things. I can find no evidence that "1834 edition" is used to refer to Flügel's Quran except when the fact that it is a Quran is clear from context. (I note that both Cairo edition and History of the Quran refer to it as "Flugel's 1834 edition", while Quran says "Flügel published an edition of the Quran in 1834") Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2023 (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).