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 05:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Di-2-furanyl-2,2'-furil → Furil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another nonsensical Itubot redirect, "furanyl" and "furil" are redundant. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bizarre mashup of furil synonyms. ― Synpath 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 05:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Philippe Hudon → Albert_Leduc#Personal_information  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, this redirect exists solely as a piece of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. A current, wholly non-notable hockey player redirecting to an extended family member who died before the redirected page was born. IceBergYYC (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. That section could justifiably be removed from the article as a fairly long stretch but I'll leave that to others to decide. If this redirect is to be kept, then the section link should be fixed as the heading is now just "Personal". A7V2 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Thai general election → 2023 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Next Thai legislative election → 2023 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Next Thailand legislative election → 2023 Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer accurate now that the election has taken place. Links can be red until there's enough information for an article about the new next election. Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unhelpful per nom. Doing so doesn't look to have major unintended consequences as far as I can see. No discussion at List of next general elections, which should be updated too. J947 † ^edits 10:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now but without prejudice against future re-creation. Pichpich (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete per above. -- Visviva (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Veverve (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The RfD tags for Next Thai general election were present for less than 2 days before 2001:FB1:9A:15:C1BF:9286:97FA:F34E overwrote the redirect with a stub. I have added back the tags, and notified of this discussion at the IP talk page. I would recommend relisting for another week. Jay 💬 16:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Equals sign#Not equal. No one objected to this retarget, however there were objections to keeping amd the other retarget. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 23:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• != → Relational operator#Standard relational operators  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think due to difficult of typing ≠ as opposed to != and the commonality of usage of != as ≠ this should probably be in sync with ≠; however, the issue with just retargetting there right now is that != is not mentioned at Inequation, the target of ≠, and I can't think of a super easy way to put in there. Retargetting without mention could be confusing for people who do not know what != means looking it up and being taken to inequation without explanation. TartarTorte 01:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't see a problem with adding a line to Inequation about symbols used in various computing contexts. But it seems like Equals sign#Not equal or Relational operator#Standard relational operators, both of which prominently feature "!=" in text, might be more helpful targets here. -- Visviva (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to either Inequation or Equals sign#Not equal. It doesn't seem to me especially necessary that ≠ and != go to the same target. IMO the most likely user intent is not "how do I learn more about the general mathematical concept represented by this symbol?" but "what the heck even is this symbol?" And since they are different symbols it's not especially problematic if they happen to go to different pages to address that question. That said, an inequation article modified so that it can answer all of those questions at once is probably the best outcome. -- Visviva (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as != is mentioned in the table in the entry for C-like. Also OK with Equals sign#Not equal per Visviva's reasoning, and where mentioned there too. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Inequation: Add a footnote after the first use of ≠ stating that != is an alternate way of writing ≠. Doesn't clutter the body, while still giving a mention in the article. Alternatively, just write it into the text if that's an unacceptable way of bringing up the alternate term. If people primarily use != to substitute for ≠, they should target the same location. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Angus. It need not be in sync with ≠ per Visviva. The current target mentions != in the context of both mathematics and programming languages. Oppose targeting to Inequation for the same reason - that article is Math-specific, although it touches upon programming. I would think that != is more about the operator, than what it represents. Jay 💬 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Equals sign#Not equal. per Visviva. Do not keep the current redirect as the operator is hard to find in the table, the passage does not adequately explain it, and it does not link back to Inequation. The Not equal section does all this quickly and links to Relational operators as well. ― Synpath 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to Equals sign#Not equal. This is mainly used in a programming context so it makes sense to target it to an article which mentions the programming aspect. Inequation does not actually mention the subject at all. Hut 8.5 17:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 💬 13:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SG → Template:WikiProject Singapore  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unique (two capitalized letters) country WP. Ambigious name. Due to ambigious name, the source of double WPing. See e.g. at Category talk:2004 in Singapore Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ambiguity of shortcuts should not be an issue, as most shortcuts are ambiguous to some extent or other. Double WPing is not caused by the existence of the shortcut, it is caused by editors not being careful to see if a WikiProject has already been added to a page. The category talk page example has been fixed. This is just a harmless shortcut among thousands just like it on Wikipedia. Note that this shortcut is listed as a shortcut in the template documentation; it should be kept. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This template is transcluded on 2,327 pages so forcing a bypass of this redirect may upset some Singapore editors who use watchlists. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just made a scan with WP:JWB and only found one other redundancy. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wbm1058: there are probably many such cases which are related to WP+1 or WP+2 letters templates. E.g. Category talk:21st-century executions by Singapore Estopedist1 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My previous JWB scan just did the talk namespace. I just made another JWB scan of the category talk namespace and that only found the same page you did, so there aren't many more there. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wbm1058 or e.g. ridicilous example of ((WPCD)) at talk:Herbivory Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That page was restored history left behind by a cut-paste move. I just completed a history-merge. Talk:Herbivory is now a redirect (remaining page history), consistent with Herbivory.

    ((WPCD)) was added on 15 May 2006. On 26 July 2010 Template:WPCD moved to Template:Wikipedia CD selection, to make a "clearer name" (as you're advocating for here). That template, which was associated with a now-defunct wikiproject: Wikipedia:WPCD, was deleted per this discussion.

    The ((WPCD)) redirect was bypassed on 16 November 2015 to ((Wikipedia CD selection)) by User:Magioladitis, an editor who used to be very active on Wikipedia and made a lot of edits to bypass redirects in templates – something they got in trouble for when these edits were deemed to be "cosmetic" and thus disruptive to watchlist users.

    The template was removed on 10 October 2018, so the problem was buried until the template WPCD was recreated to serve a different purpose a month later, and the blanked cut-paste was ill-advisably restored in April 2020‎. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as "SG" is an abbreviation for "Singapore", any template for Singapore could be wanted, not just the project banner. Thus ((WPSG)) is a better option for a shortcut to the project banner. There being ((User in Singapore)), ((User from Singapore)), ((User interest Singapore)), ((User citizen Singapore)), ((User Singapore)), ((User WP Singapore)), ((Country data Singapore)), ((Country data Colony of Singapore)), ((Singapore-lang-mcphot)), ((Use Singapore English)), ((Singapore English)), ((Singapore topics)) being likely options -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 26 § Template:(country) redirects deleted a lot of country-name template redirects, including Template:Singapore. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects may be used with WP:AWB to bypass WikiProject banner redirects, optimizing AWB's talk page general fixes. We can fairly quickly implement this if there is a consensus for it, but, as I said, generally this is only done when some other edit is made to the talk page, so as to not anger the watchlisters who view these as cosmetic edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"((\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Singapore|WPSINGAPORE|WPSingapore|WP[ _]+Singapore|SG) *\r?([\|}{<\n])", "((WikiProject Singapore$2", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);

  • Next I draw your attention to User:Scott/Notes/WikiProject template redirects, a comprehensive list of all template redirects to templates whose names begin with "WikiProject". Find this one listed under "Beginning with anything else". At the time this list was last generated, there were 3383 ((SG)) transclusions. Now we're down to 2098 (someone's been working on this?) so the AWB "general fixes" apparently have been gradually working this down. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My RMCD bot notifies talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts and whose talk pages transclude templates beginning ((WikiProject of moves of interest, e.g. WT:WikiProject Singapore. In this case, the project is subscribed: WT:WikiProject Singapore § Article alerts, so not a problem. But, if the project weren't subscribed, my bot would notify talk pages with ((WikiProject Singapore)) but not pages with ((SG)). There's a tradeoff here: the convenience of editors who edit talk pages to add the template vs. the convenience of bot programmers. To date I haven't made it a priority to make the extra effort. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, too many possible meanings for "SG". Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I feel that the benefits of making all WikiProject templates more consistently begin with ((WikiProject or at least ((WP, to reduce ambiguity, outweigh the costs of inconvenience to the editors adding these templates and watchlist users. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary benefit is that AWB will automatically push 3+ banners into a ((WPBS)) when all banners are named appropriately (((WikiProject ). There should probably be a list for AWB to consume of banner redirects to convert a la WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects rather than having it maintained in that totally separate list. Izno (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's best if WikiProject templates begin with "WikiProject" or at least "WP" to keep things consistent and unsuprising for editors. I don't think it's asking too much of WikiProject Singapore to consider using, say, ((WPSG)) instead. There's no particularly good reason why "SG" as an abbreviation for "Singapore" should point to this template rather than to any of the other Singapore-related templates, and this is before considering what else "SG" might mean (eg. ((Stargate))). Disambiguation pages for shortcuts defeats the point of having shortcuts. Deletion is the simplest solution. – Scyrme (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I understand the above reasons to delete this shortcut, but I think that it's important to note that this template actually was the name of the WikiProject Singapore template and was moved in 2010 to Template:WikiProject Singapore. As a rule, don't we keep such redirects from moves? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two concepts of template shortcuts. The more common meaning of shortcuts is defined at WP:Shortcut. As a pseudo-namespace, T: is used for limited or specific uses only (uses are listed in this category. It's more desirable to retain these links after moves, so as not to break links in archives and from external sites, etc. But there are relatively few internal links so the impact of deletion should be minimal. "Transclusion redirects" are only internal. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: What is the plan for the 2327 transclusions if this shortcut is deleted? You say they are only internal, but shouldn't they be fixed? Jay 💬 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. WP:AWB WP:GENFIXES#Talk page general fixes using the custom module User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects is on the job. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think there is consensus to Delete. So, once done, you can update here, and an admin can close, and delete the redirect. Jay 💬 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above reasons. Izno (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 (WP:G6). Deleted by Liz with the rationale "Obviously created in error" (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 03:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shea butter revision 2009 → Shea butter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was left over from a move in 2009 (the year in the title), but I'm not sure we should still have this thing around. It appears to promise a revision from 2009 (which I'm not sure Wikipedia would redirect to), so it might be misleading. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 04:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete it appears it was only at this location for approximately a minute and the same user moved it from the current name and back: there Special:Diff/322099483 and back Special:Diff/322099607, assuming I'm reading the diffs correctly. Skynxnex (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G6. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've placed ((db-g6)) on it as you and Skynxnex have requested. I think this title should also go to WP:DAFT while we're at it, as it makes one think that the very idea of shea butter was revised in 2009, which it was not. Duckmather (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Legions of Hell → Heroes in Hell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Searching for the phrases "legions of Hell" (corresponds to this redirect) and "Hell's legions" (no corresponding redirect exists) on Wikipedia bring up a number of results unrelated to the book series which is the current target.

It was previously a redundant stub that was blanked and redirect to the current target by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on 10 August 2011. The current target relates to its previous content and that target is unlikely to be the primary topic. Searching on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Bing bring up mixed results, including the book with this title alongside unrelated results.
Wikipedia's search results might provide enough entries for a disambiguation page, although I'm also open to suggestions to retarget. – Scyrme (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned as a group in Black Adam (film) and a track in Black Adam (soundtrack) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change into a disambiguation page if there are enough Wikipedia entries for "Legions of Hell", otherwise Keep. A search in Wikipedia for "Legions of Hell" yields a handful of possibilities unrelated to the book series (the target of this redirect), but I don't know if it's sufficient to justify a disambiguation page. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• DAB - I can imagine a christian, or someone encountering the phrase in the christian-sphere, searching for this title and being utterly confused why a work of fiction comes up. When these people talk about the "legions of hell" it's in all full sincerity and earnestness. The disambiguation page should contain a link to Demon at the very least, which I would consider to be the primary topic... but it's a primary topic in a field that has been used by many writers in many contexts, so I still think disambiguation is probably the way to go. Legion (demons) would also be another good inclusion, and Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac as well. I'm sure there are more novels and comic books and movies as well that could be put on such a DAB page, but I'd leave that to others. Fieari (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † ^edits 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB per the reasons mentioned above. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 12:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig as proposed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've created a draft at the redirect. Feel free to amend it as needed. – Scyrme (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That looks fine, I'm happy with that. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no non-keep !votes. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• J Biden → Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R from other punctuation)) for J. Biden. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, I assumed the curly punctuation marks were intentional, as other punctuation. J947 † ^edits 05:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless and seemingly helpful. J947 † ^edits 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as harmless with solid pageviews. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above me. It's also a reasonable search term-Commonwealth English doesn't use periods after initials, it's still helpful with all these pageviews, and President Biden is about the most notable J. Biden we have on Wikipedia. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 04:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like to withdraw my nomination. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 disambiguate. There's clear agreement that the desirable outcome is disambiguation, and no consensus as to whether revision history should be deleted or preserved, with some of the support for preservation coming in the form of !votes for the procedural use of AfD/PROD instead of RfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Laura Clark → Daily Mail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. ★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article, which was referenced, if only poorly, and had existed for over 5 years. No mention at the target when BLARed by David Gerard. Can be taken to AfD if desired. A7V2 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, here's the article at the time. If you have actual multiple independent third-party RSes actually about Clark, then by all means go for it. But what you just said is that in five years, nobody could find any independent third-party RSes or could be bothered putting them in - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution to an inappropriate article is not an inappropriate redirect. This could have been solved by a PROD instead of the BLAR. RfD is not the place to discuss deleting articles, and as a general rule only articles which meet a criteria for speedy deletion would be deleted here. A7V2 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most convincing argument would be for you to find any any independent third-party RSes, as nobody managed to do in five years - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're misunderstanding the actual argument here. I don't think anyone is saying Laura Clark should be kept in its form before being BLAR'd. They're objecting to the method used, which was BLARing the page and then redirecting it to another page which did not mention the subject. I agree that a PROD would have been the better route here, and I would support restoring and PRODding. I don't think anyone would object to that PROD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • This sounds like you're more interested in bureaucracy than in finding RSes. I'm not really seeing the point of taking such a circuitous route to end up (as you say yourself) in the same place - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Disambiguate per AngusWOOF (either with or without restoring the article as suggested). Definitely don't delete first and then disambiguate, that serves no purpose whatsoever and then loses the history for no reason. Second preference still to restore the article. Definitely don't delete or keep. A7V2 (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that if there weren't articles about other Laura Clarks this would be a simple case of "delete" and it's generally agreed that the article should've been PROD'd in the first place rather than redirected, I don't see why the history of the article warrants preservation. It's entirely irrelevant to the new disambiguation page. WP:BLP encourages restraint around people who aren't public figures or are relatively unknown. Although, admittedly, the stub doesn't seem to have contained anything likely to be contentious, there's no harm in losing the history here. Why hold on to unrelated history rather than start with a clean slate? – Scyrme (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless the restorer can find RSes sufficient to support a BLP. This is per policy. As a BLP, this article should not be restored without solid independent third-party reliable sources. Per WP:BLP, which is policy, Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. The article should not be restored on spurious claims of procedure - as a BLP, we must only restore it with the solid third-party RSes already in place. That we had a bad and unsourced article on a living person for five years is the opposite of a reason to perpetuate the situation - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or a disambig is good too - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article, rename to Laura Clark (journalist) so that will retain the article history, send to AFD if still not notable. Then make the redirect into a disambiguation as there are multiple Laura Clarks: Laura Lee Clark, Laura Jane Clark, Laura Guido-Clark as well as Laura Clarke. If kept, then it will be removed by DABMENTION since Daily Mail doesn't have her name mentioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, the article has never had at any point history beyond two non-RS links - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, David Gerard deserves a trout for sweeping the problem under the rug with an unhelpful redirect instead of PROD'ing/AfD'ing it. However, I do agree with him that an article in that condition should not be restored without evidence of notability. Then disambiguate the name per AngusWOOF. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually going to PROD it, then realised that a redirect is a perfectly good solution to a PROD, so went straight to that. Neither action is somehow bureaucratically binding, it's baffling to see it spoken of as if it somehow is - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well no, a redirect is not a perfectly good solution when there is no information on the subject at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Gerard, then disambiguate per AngusWOOF and Tavix. I agree that it's pointless to restore the article just to send it to a separate process that would reach the exact same conclusion. Searching off-Wikipedia I wasn't able to find any indication to suggest that reliable independent sources exist, so there's no chance of an AfD deciding to keep the restored article. Keeping/retargeting the redirect isn't an option for essentially the same reason; redirecting would require a mention, and a mention would have to be supported by a reference. Deletion seem to be the only plausible outcome, and I don't see a benefit to taking the long way around. The suggested disambiguation page is a better use of the title and is more likely to be helpful to readers than the alternatives. – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 04:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• General election can be a drastic and unexpected change. → General election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I couldn't find that quote anywhere except on Wikimedia sites-I also couldn't find it on Wikiquote (it seems more like a quote than the title of an article). It also wasn't mentioned in the target article at the time it was moved from that title. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sure why this even exists to begin with. It was created with the summary "General election can be a drastic and unexpected change. moved to General election" but as far as I can tell the article was not moved from that title, and there was no copy/pasting of content over either. – Scyrme (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 04:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yellow Green Line (Denver) → R Line (RTD)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Yellow Green Line (Paris) → Paris Métro Line 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pi.1415926535 prodded Yellow Green Line with the rationale : Neither of these lines appears to actually be known as the "yellow green line", either officially or unofficially. Creator is indeffed for creating useless disambig pages and redirects. If that is true, the same would be true of the redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can find scant evidence of the R Line on the RTD being referred to as Yellow Green and I could find pretty much nothing other than one or two guides describing the colors of the emblems of the Paris Metro which use Yellow Green or Vert Jaunâtre to describe Line 9 and even those uses don't call it the Yellow Green Line, they just say the color of the signs are yellow green. Seems safe to delete. TartarTorte 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).