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 💬 06:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You know the rules, and so do I → Never Gonna Give You Up  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Tagged as a related meme due to "say goodbye". In any case, this line is not mentioned at the target page and is unlikely to be searched for, instead of the easily-accessible title of the song. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with your reasoning. Same for below (We're no strangers to love). I hope people who want to go to the article on "Never Gonna Give You Up" on the 'pedia would know the name, so why search it with this term? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a less plausible search term for the song or the meme than "We're no strangers to love", which a Rickrolling victim will at least hear in part or in full (arguably while fumbling with either the X button on the browser tab or their music player to drown it out with death metal or horrorcore rap). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:53, 10 April 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 retarget to Rickrolling. Jay 💬 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We're no strangers to love → Never Gonna Give You Up  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This line is not mentioned at the target page and is unlikely to be searched for, instead of the easily-accessible title of the song. Notably though, this is the first line of the song, and is very often what one will hear during the course of a Rickroll. This line is mentioned at the article for Rickrolling, which somehow might just be a better target than the status quo... Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; Retarget to Rickroll as second choice - Given the song's use in a meme, either is a plausible target. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: or retarget as Jeske has said above. It seems plenty likely to be searched for, seeing as it's the quite-memorable first line of a song often encountered unintentionally. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This lyric is covered at Rickroll. It isn't even mentioned at the song's article, so between these two options, the content on Wikipedia indicates Rickroll as the most helpful location. Because Wikipedia isn't a lyric compendium, there is no benefit to teaching people the true name of a song by typing in the first lyric; Genius and Google Searching does that. If someone types in a topic on Wikipedia, they expect to receive encyclopedic content about the term, and such content does not appear at Never Gonna Give You Up as it currently stands. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Rickroll as per Utopes and Jeske. If someone's looking for the actual song, it's linked in the first sentence of the Rickroll article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 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 💬 06:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Everybody clap your hands → Cha Cha Slide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A line from this song. While it might be an iconic callout in the song, without a mention at the target this redirect does not fulfill its purpose as an R from lyric. Wikipedia is not a lyric database, and there is a roughly 0% chance that any given lyric has a redirect for it. Lyrics are not topics by default. Only if the lyric is mentioned and/or discussed does it become a standalone topic, and this one, at this time, is not. Heck, based on the current composition of the article, Live at Tokyo Dome could absorb this redirect, as it actually talks about the act of "everybody clapping their hands", which the Cha Cha Slide article does not. For people who don't know the name of the Cha Cha Slide, that's what search engines are for, not Wikipedia lyric redirects. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete highly generic -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 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 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fifi Bradlaugh → Brave New World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Character from a novel not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. No information means that people searching this term instead of the book are left disappointed due to their query not answered. Created by Neelix, for what it's worth. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had this been discovered earlier it would prolly have been X1 speedied due to it being one of Neelix's redirects. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about as minor character as you can get in the book, never likely to be mentioned in the article or searched for. MarcGarver (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the lack of a mention anywhere on Wikipedia and the subject not being notable enough to have any content. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:38, 14 April 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 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Rodríguez → Cleveland Guardians minor league players#Eric Rodríguez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Adam Scott (baseball) → Cleveland Guardians minor league players#Adam Scott  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page and he is not currently a member of the Guardians organization. see also similar minor league baseball player redirects listed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8 Joeykai (talk) 23:06, 9 April 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 23:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fictional Jimbo Wales → Dinosaur Comics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently, a fictional version of Jimbo Wales once appeared in Dinosaur Comics! This can't be garnered from the target, though, as the page seemingly has never featured this particular caricature since its inception... 😔 Definitely not by 2012. For the loyal fans looking for information on the aptly-named fictionalized version of Jimbo, enthusiasts are left crying due to devastation of no relevant information at the target. 🥲 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If information DID exist at target, I'd instead recommend to keep and tag with R from incorrect disambig. Alas. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 10 April 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 23:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Isaac ben bassat → Yitzhak Ben-Bashat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not referred to this way in the article, google results are for a deceased hematologist. At this title for under a minute. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 9 April 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 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Facebook Analytics → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page does not really cover the topic of "Facebook Analytics", but rather the idea of social media analytics as a whole. A specific Wikipedia search of the "Facebook Analytics" feature does not deliver readers with relevant content, and instead of taken to a generic page for all social media without warning. The target section that was specific to Facebook, for fbclid, seems to no longer exist. List of Facebook features, Facebook Beacon, Facebook F8 all at least mention the topic? But as it stands there is much to be desired I feel, especially with the disappearance of the fbclip section. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:12, 9 April 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 23:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Facebook Click Identifier → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Facebook click identifier → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Facebook Click ID → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Facebook click ID → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fbclid → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• FBCLID → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• FBclid → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fbclid parameter → Social media analytics#fbclid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Facebook's click identifer, "fbclid", nor it's parameters are mentioned at the target. The section that this used to point to no longer exists, and without any other significant discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia about Facebook's Click ID, it looks as if these redirects are currently without a proper home. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lot of them as implausible; a search for the term on Wikipedia in articlespace returns only the redirects. (Click identifier should also be removed as well, since three of the four linked articles are redirects with implausible targets.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:42, 10 April 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 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Faketoshi → Craig Steven Wright  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not called "faketoshi" at the target page, unmentioned nicknames are not incredibly helpful and this subject can be found through much more plausible means. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; unless "faketoshi" is a established nickname for him this isn't a plausible redirect in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible redirect; the lack of pageviews vindicates this. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:37, 14 April 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 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Evolved Apes → Non-fungible token  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Evolved apes are not discussed at the general page for NFTs. Can also be in references to apes which have evolved through the process of evolution, but I don't think either usage is likely at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. While Evolved Apes themselves are not discussed directly, an article discussing them is used as a reference in the opener, for the statement NFTs... have drawn criticism for... their use in art scams. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah there is literally like only one mention in the citations. Honestly, this entire situation could probably be a full page if there were more credible sources covering it. Apparently, the super intelligent apes in Planet of the Apes are also called Evolved Apes but it's WP:FANDOM so take it with a grain of salt. Okmrman (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unmentioned in the body (non-reference) portion of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 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 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron Antonini → St. Louis Cardinals minor league players#Aaron Antonini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Grant Black → St. Louis Cardinals minor league players#Grant Black  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dalton Roach → St. Louis Cardinals minor league players#Dalton Roach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page and he is not currently a member of the Cardinals organization. see also similar minor league baseball player redirects listed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8 Joeykai (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I have been deleting some of these redirects to "minor league players" pages without content on the pages per WP:CSD#G6. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 13 April 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 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Email etiquettes → Email  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page does not talk about etiquette. Only history was a user essay that was BLAR'd within a couple minutes. Readers who look up information about "email etiquettes" are likely looking for etiquette related topics, rather than email as a whole. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This could be a redirect to Etiquette in technology#Netiquette to match netiquette, but since neither email etiquette nor netiquettes exists, this awkward phrasing probably isn't needed. - Eureka Lott 18:21, 10 April 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 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehlron Tay → Shannara#Ehlron Tay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be the name of a fictional character, not mentioned at the target article or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of this redirect many, many years ago—clear delete. It's effectively a G8 in spirit, albeit not letter. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:33, 9 April 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 retarget to Names of the United States#Other languages. ✗plicit 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EEUU → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• EE.UU. → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• EE. UU. → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-English abbreviation for a language variation not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Names of the United States#Other languages where it's mentioned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. Spanish is a language common to portions of the U.S. annexed from Mexico -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Estados Unidos de América (EE. UU.) currently points to United States -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:05, 10 April 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 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Frugality rules → Eight-point Regulation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are numerous things that could be referred to as "frugality rules"; no reason why this is the primary topic. I propose deleting this in the absence of a clear primary topic. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:26, 9 April 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 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pic (Star Wars character) → List of Star Wars characters#Pic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what this is referring to. Not mentioned at target, and no reasonable target exists. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Picaroon C Boodle is not a notable character, so delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only mention of this character I found is one very brief instance at Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II which does not offer much to go off of for readers. We are not Wookiepedia, and anyone looking for this obscure character would best find more there. Unlikely to be useful here for the encyclopedia from a real-world perspective. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maclunkey -- er, Delete as an implausible redirect pointing to a nonexistent section on a page, with no valid, plausible target. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:36, 10 April 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 💬 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Room101 → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Room 101 is a torture chamber included in George Orwell's 1984.

Is ANI dismal at times? Yeah it can be. Is there drama that occurs? That it does. Is it the most torturous place on all of Wikipedia? Even if it was, that's not a universal truth. ANI is not a torture chamber that contorts victims and exposes them to their deepest nightmares. It can be bad at times but CERTAINLY not "whailling-from-the-ninth-circle-in-pain" bad. If a page called WP:Torture Chamber popped up as a redirect to ANI, it would get R3'd ASAP imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-ify and tag as Humorous as per this discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equating ANI with human torture is not humorous, but that's just me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but then again, I also don't find the idea of gorillas eating gerbils to be funny, so I just assume I don't get the joke. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my vote to softify is getting weaker by the second the more strong arguments against keep I see on this discussion-- special note goes to Ivanvector, taking aim at the idea that the redirect is harmless. I'll go out on a limb and outright state that I no longer oppose outright deletion-- my 'softify' vote from now on is mainly going to be against the idea of outright keeping (i.e. "if we keep, we shouldn't keep it as a hard redirect, we need to make it a soft redirect"). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely to be helpful/functional. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect is completely harmless. Wikipedia has a long tradition of funny redirects to internal pages, especially ANI. Some of them are WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES, WP:Great Dismal Swamp, WP:HAPPYPLACE, and WP:ALOTOFDRAMA. Aside from that, no actual argument has been made for why the redirect shouldn't exist or what policy/guideline it violates. It's a little piece of wiki-culture and history that isn't hurting anyone, and I find it useful. There's plenty of room for levity in internal project-space. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Torture chambers are not humorous, it is in no way accurate and, as WJBscribe once said, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: it isn't humorous to you. Comedy is inherently subjective, and gallows humor is a well established concept. I don't find real-life torture chambers funny, and if this were something like Wikipedia:Abu Ghraib prison I might agree with you. But nobody was tortured in Room 101 except fictional characters, so there's no risk of causing actual harm to anyone. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, my apologies. If I ever see WP:ANI compared to a fictional torture chamber in the future, I'll be sure to let out a hearty guffaw in your honor. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Village stocks, an actual humour essay with a torture theme, or delete as second choice; do not keep. As a redirect to ANI it's pointless: it has no incoming links from discussions and likewise has no pageview activity. And as many have tried to argue in various ways over a number of years: it is actively harmful to compare one of Wikipedia's main dispute resolution forums with a work of psychological horror. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither the village stocks, nor ANI, nor anything else on Wikipedia is the worst thing in the world. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fittingly, this is Room 101 for useless redirects who have to be tortured into their targets. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete per above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:39, 15 April 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 Withdrawn. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (London)derry → Derry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Don't know what the point of putting London in parentheses does. It's either called Derry or Londonderry. No in-between. Okmrman (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one way that people use to acknowledge the dispute without expressing an opinion on which is correct. See as just two examples this academic paper subtitled "English in (London)Derry, Northern Ireland", this Medium piece. There are also multiple forum and Reddit posts that appear high on google results - searching is hard though as Google refuses to distinguish "(London)derry", "(London)Derry", "London-Derry", "London/Derry" (either as one place or as "London to Derry") and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf, parentheses in this style indicates a variable presence in the topic's title, which can be included or removed without affecting the context. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Kk.urban (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:51, 9 April 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 💬 08:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:ANI has a good chunk of redirects, perhaps there's humor in this one being even more implausible than something like WP:Great Dismal Swamp, but casting the aspersions that "people in ANI are scum and villains" is probably not the type of humorful redirect we'd like to keep, as this title comes at the expense of the ANI individuals rather than the ANI environment. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - functionless redirect, offers no benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While I vouched for the prior one and gave it the benefit of the doubt, this one is utterly pointless and not used for humor. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This one targets users and is just offensive. Meters (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it clearly wasn't intended maliciously it might be prone to being misinterpreted as such. It serves no necessary purpose so let's get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a harmless Star Wars reference, doesn't hurt anything and adds a bit of levity. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is not humorous, it is in no way accurate and, as WJBscribe once said, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "This is not humorous" → I think it's hilarious. In dealing with this redirect "we must be cautious". Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? You think it's hilarious to compare those undergoing conflict resolution to denizens of Mos Eisley? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and for the record, Jayjg did not shoot first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unnecessary redirect. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 12:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Things do not, generally speaking, improve by making it against the rules to make fun of them for sucking. They improve by people improving them, so that they cease to suck. Moverover, this appears to be a reference to a movie: Star Wars (1977). It doesn't seem really offensive. jp×g🗯️ 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not humorous and slightly offensive, as others have already stated. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is offensive and not humorous.If a statement requires in depth knowledge of a film to make it acceptable then that statement is not acceptable even if the film is famous. OrewaTel (talk) 04:25, 17 April 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 retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Users for deletion → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a useful redirect pointing at WP:ANI. Technically has an uppercase version that exists as an April Fools page, but this version existed a bit longer. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - marginally useful as a redirect to ANI since the closest we can get to deleting a user is usually something that happens through ANI, but its real use is in discouraging worse mischief. Stats show a flurry of activity around and especially on April 1, a pattern that has repeated every year since its creation, which suggests that if this was deleted someone would just recreate it every year. As a redirect to ANI it's pretty much harmless, but we've seen from similar low-value humour redirects that if we leave them for the sort of editor who finds this sort of joke funny to pick their own targets, bad things happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was on the verge of boldly retargeting this to WP:Users for Deletion, due to the caps and evident humor tags, but figured I'd at least bring it here as it concerns a page with lots of stigma. When people type this in, nobody knows that they're coming in from a "humor-templated redirect" as that part is hidden. I don't have a problem with humorful redirects in theory, as long as the humor is fair and isn't coming down like a ton of bricks against anyone. WP:ANI only has 50 incoming redirects. Some are logical, others are humorous akin to WP:DRAMABOARD and WP:CESSPIT. With those, the humor feels more fair as it pokes at the dramatic environment of ANI as a whole, as opposed to the individuals "that get brought there to be deleted". None of the other humor redirects to ANI make light of contributors getting "deleted" from Wikipedia, so imo this probably isn't good-natured enough of a joke to redirect-ify, at the expense of anyone who was "deleted" at ANI during a tough and/or stressful situation. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, it should target the "humour" essay with the same title but for caps. There was a mass nomination some years ago to pare down all the weird shortcuts to ANI but there were quite a few that remained, largely because they've been used in discussions and deleting them would break old conversations. I doubt that's an issue here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retarget to WP:Users for Deletion: It has a humor template for a reason and is realistically harmless. Edited to support retargeting as another viable option. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Wikipedia:Users for Deletion (created a few months after this redirect) doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we should just retarget there (or move that page here): the different capitalization shouldn't lead to a different page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nominator and am puzzled by the support here. I don't understand what sort of function redirects like this serve. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep where it is as per Ivanvector, or retarget to WP:Users for Deletion as per nom, Trailblazer, and Extraordinary Writ. I hold no opinion one way or the other-- but deletion is definitely a no-go here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is deletion a no-go? Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially because, if we shouldn't keep, then we definitely should retarget-- it makes no sense to delete when there's an obvious target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion per nom and my comment above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget This one I'm fine with, it's seldom used and there's a better target that may actually help with navigation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion, obviously. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion. Assuming that page survives, I would probably !vote to delete it at MfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion per above. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 12:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and move that page here as its not a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Users for Deletion: per above jp×g🗯️ 17:01, 13 April 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 retarget to List of human positions#Squatting or crouching. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monkey squat → Squatting position#Partial squat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to refer to a specific type of bodyweight exercise, but neither Squatting position nor Squat (exercise) mention this. The few YouTube videos that I watched don't seem to have a consistent definition. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of human positions#Squatting or crouching, where it is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:52, 9 April 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorority squat → Squatting position#Partial squat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I could find, "sorority squat" seems to be a colloquial term referring to how members of sororities sometimes pose for group pictures, but neither the current target page (Squatting position) nor Fraternities_and_sororities#Sororities mention this. Therefore I think the redirect as it currently stands may cause more confusion than it's worth.

As an aside, pageview statistics indicate that this received more views in a period between 2016-2017 but dropped off since. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned on enwiki and targets a non-existent section. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Investigation reveals that the page used to carry a discussion of the topic before receiving a major cleanup around 2019 (which then was the subject of drama between the page's resident WP:WikiDragon and the editor who did the cleaning, but that situation's already been resolved afaik). I don't feel that the targeted section (removed during the cleanup) or the mention itself could, or should, be restored. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 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 retarget to Media coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy#Locally in Dallas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam Pate → KNGO  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in targets. Seems to have been an announcer known for covering the Kennedy assassination (see e.g. Dallas news, though that gives a different radio station). Rusalkii (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Media coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy#Locally in Dallas, where there is relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Media coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy#Locally in Dallas per Presidentman. Even if the radio station lacks information on him, the media coverage article does. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 03:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Media coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy#Locally in Dallas where he is mentioned. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 14 April 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Logoic plane → Plane (esotericism)#Spiritual planes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "logoic" appears nowhere in the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It does, as part of the ((Planes of existence)) transclusion, but is collapsed, and in effect is a self-redirect. Jay 💬 15:56, 16 April 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monadic plane → Plane (esotericism)#Spiritual planes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "monadic" appears nowhere in the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well it doesn't appear there now, as it was excised in February [1]. It was always there before. I am not entirely surprised it was removed, as all I could find, when I looked at this in 2022, to support it was some Theosophy sources, and that is all rather fringe. Thus I had WP:BLARed the page in August 2022 [2]. You will see on the talk page that the editor who created the page didn't really seem to have much understanding of the subject nor of Wikipedia policy, and had I not carried out the BLAR I would have taken this to AfD. But here's the tricky thing: the redirect has history. Deleting the redirect means deleting the Theosophy based unsourced article with dubious Greek in the history. If it went to AfD I would vote delete, but as a non RfD regular, I'll ask the question: is a vote to delete this article, along with its history, within the remit of RfD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: - would appreciate your thoughts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sometimes happens. Other times the outcome of a RfD is to restore the article, and sometimes send it to AfD. I generally just take things to RfD and let other regulars there determine if a restoration is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK thanks. In that case I'll make a !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Discussion above refers. I would be equally happy with restoring the page and taking to AfD, but I would just vote delete there too. This only gets mentioned in theosophy sources (and even there it is very much a passing reference). Theosophy is WP:FRINGE. There is no case for a page on the monadic plane, and there is now no good redirect target. There is one possible retarget option, which is Monad (philosophy). It would not and should not mention a monadic plane though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged as ((R from merge)). Jay 💬 15:50, 16 April 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia. → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mexico State. → State of Mexico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Municipalities of Mexico State. → Municipalities of the State of Mexico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:PANDORA there is no more reason to have redirects here than at London. (which I fixed 2 links for yesterday[3][4]), United States., Jupiter. or Donald Trump.. None of these have any useful history or were at the title for more than a day or so. Yes it may be argued due to me fixing links (which I might have done before) they are plausible but such an error doesn't seem a good reason to have them as we could otherwise end up creating numerous redirects for errors and the errors would also be slightly harder to notice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Wikipedia. Binnenstaat (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:RTYPO, which also literally calls out Wikipedia., the discussion Binnenstaat linked. (Also, see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTYPO gives the example of Georgia (U.S. state that was previously kept but was more recently deleted, the same logic applies here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia. It's still a relatively common redirect.

Delete Municipalities of Mexico State. and Mexico State. since your argument still does extend to these two links. Okmrman (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what part of his arguments against Municipalities of Mexico State. or Mexico State. still hold that wouldn't also apply in equal measure to Wikipedia., and thus, wouldn't be roundly parried by the fact that Wikipedia. should be kept as per WP:RTYPO. If Wikipedia. should be kept, Mexico State. and Municipalities of Mexico State. should be kept, too. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable deletion for Wikipedia. due to lack of WP:AFFINITY Okmrman (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as harmless and unambiguous per the previous discussion and per Lunamann above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete #2, #3 as exemplar Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects: "Titles with punctuation, obscure errors, additions, or removals that have no specific affinity to one title over any other ... e.g. having a period at the end". I'll accept #1 as it stubbornly gets 44 page views a month over the last year: if only we could find out why. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it fascinating that WP:AFFINITY and WP:RTYPO are so opposed, especially since I was under the impression that WP:COSTLY's version of RTYPO was WP:PANDORA. That said, I can't mention Pandora without also mentioning User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing special about these topics to elicit a period, a lack of WP:AFFINITY. These seem to be the only examples on this entire site(?) (Unless I'm missing something). Implausible typo, not a good practice (so many of these pop up and get deleted), and there are no topics on Wikipedia about a punctuation mark following any of these titles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:AFFINITY. None are of any use; I'm sure the 44 visitors to Wikipedia. will find their way to their destination without the redirect's aid. Anarchyte (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:UNNATURAL, WP:PANDORA. Unnecessary redirects for a strange typo StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Already linked it in this discussion but I'll link it again: PANDORA is a bad article to cite; see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6#Recently created redirects with a full stop at the end resulted in a consensus to delete though those judging by the title were recently created none of these have useful history or were at the titles long so a similar logic likely apples. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of precedence on WP:RFD for deletion of such redirects (I nominated a few myself a few years back); usually, the discussions will contain the phrase "full stop" in them. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Public Transport in Newcastle → Newcastle, Australia#Transport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

First thing that is wrong is that the second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless its a proper noun. But anyway, the thing is Newcastle often refers to the city in UK or the one in Australia so I am not sure if this could either serve as a redirect to Newcastle or a new dab page. In case of the latter, the article title needs to change to 'Public transport in Newcastle'. I am leaning towards creating a dab page btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperChill (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an ambiguous and miscapitalized term without a clear target. I don't see any overview articles about public transit in Category:Transport in Newcastle, New South Wales or Category:Transport in Newcastle upon Tyne, so there aren't good candidates for items on a potential disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 20:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (at Public transport in Newcastle with a lower case T): at a minimum this could refer to Newcastle upon Tyne § Transport, Newcastle, New South Wales § Transport, Newcastle-under-Lyme § Transport, Newcastle, County Wicklow § Transport, Newcastle, Dublin § Transport, Newcastle, County Down § Transport, New Castle, Delaware § Transportation, New Castle, Pennsylvania § Transportation, and quite possibly others I've missed from the Newcastle dab page. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it's verboten, but a disambiguation page that consists entirely of section links isn't typical. This may be an instance where it's better to let the search engine do its job. - Eureka Lott 15:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Transport in Tyne and Wear (which includes Newcastle-upon-Tyne) would make a good entry on that proposed dab page as well I think. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate: multiple places called Newcastle, and so we shouldn't be assuming people want any particular one of them. And this is consistent with base name Newcastle being a DAB page. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eureka. We don't have any articles on public transport in Newcastle. Jay 💬 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to reveal search results, as we don't have any articles specifically about transport in any of the Newcastles. Deryck C. 17:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Rosbif73 and Joseph2302. A7V2 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The disambiguation page would be inherently redundant and unmaintainable - anyone who sees Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this will probably search for either just "Newcastle" or Transport in the specific Newcastle they are referring to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. Okmrman (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lich (Extinct World) → List of Adventure Time characters#The Lich  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as WP:FANCRUFT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per how I voted in linked discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:FANCRUFT. DrowssapSMM 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BMO (Extinct World) → List of Adventure Time characters#BMO  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as WP:FANCRUFT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per how I voted in linked discussion. (Tbh it'd probably be best to bundle up these lol, would make things go by so much quicker) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:FANCRUFT. DrowssapSMM 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ice King (Extinct World) → Ice King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as WP:FANCRUFT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per how I voted in linked discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:FANCRUFT. DrowssapSMM 13:54, 10 April 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 retarget to Anime#Genres. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adult anime → Hentai  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not all anime targeted towards adults is hentai. Also, hentai usually describes manga or drawings. Okmrman (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Adult" is sometimes a euphemism for sexual or pornographic, but not always; for example, adult animation is something different, so it would be better to have no redirect at all. Kk.urban (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in English hentai also refers to anime. The target article, hentai, also covers anime. In English "adult" frequently refers to pornographic material, such as adult video, adult entertainment, adult magazine, etc.; so this is a reasonable redirect. Add a hatnote to handle the misdirected people to the regular anime article and the adult animation article -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Remanding the IP user: Hentai is not ALL anime, and in fact, the terminology covers quite a bit that wouldn't be covered by 'anime'. It'd be like saying that a 'thriller' is term for 'movie'. More to the point, Kk.urban already mentioned how "Adult anime" could also cover non-pornographic anime meant for an adult audience. You wouldn't show Neon Genesis Evangelion to a five-year-old, would you? But it's not hentai. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why wouldn't I? Neocorelight (Talk) 03:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this scene says all anyone needs to say regarding the matter. (TECHNICALLY it's from End of Evangelion, which is the movie made to end the series, and not from the series itself, but that's a distinction without much of a difference tbh.)

  Please don't make me explain the Third Impact in an RfD discussion about hentai 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully expected it to be the scene of Shinji masturbating on Asuka's comatose body. Turns out you're showing me a much tamer scene. 💀 Neocorelight (Talk) 06:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On the one hand, my entire argument here is that you shouldn't show it to a kid and yet it's not hentai, why would I show the most hentai-esque scene in the anime lol, feels like I'd be shooting myself in the foot?? The scene showing the destruction of all life on earth via transmutation into Fanta illustrates my point far better

  on the other hand
  
  why the hecc are you asking why you wouldn't show it to a five year old when you're already familiar with THAT scene 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In addition, between the current target and Anime, this redirect is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anime#Genres. I don't see anyone suggesting redlink as an option, I don't see how deletion will benefit. Jay 💬 04:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote to Retarget as per Jay. Good catch! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow the new retarget idea to be discussed. The page is clearly not staying as the status quo at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Anime#Genres. This target assumes the least of the searcher, providing a section referring to several demographics targeted by anime alongside Hentai. I'm not convinced that deletion would help searchers, as results lean heavily towards pornography or hits that are rather tenuously related to the search term. The page is also seeing a decent amount of use daily (on track for ~150 views per month), so serving up this section rather than potentially useless search results seems like a good compromise. ― Synpath 05:04, 10 April 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 retarget to Flower. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 🌼 → Bloom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What is the best target for this redirect? As Bloom isn't an article, the redirect currently at time of listing leads to a disambiguation page listing meanings such as Bloom syndrome and Bloom (software) which aren't particularly relevant to the symbol. The official English description is Blossom. If we can't use that for some reason, I would suggest a compromise of Flower, but that already has a separate Unicode symbol (⚘ U+2698 FLOWER) redirecting there. Ping: TadejM. Certes (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 16#🌼 which I somehow overlooked earlier. We've already decided this as Blossom, and a bolder editor has just retargeted to there, so we can probably close this off unless there are objections. Certes (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as moot; redirect does not currently go to Bloom. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does; it's been changed again as we wrote. Certes (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Or not.

Okay so, can someone please protect the page while we hash this out?
In any case, my vote goes to Target to Blossom as per the linked previous discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that editors who maintain disambiguation links are likely to keep reverting to the status quo ante of Blossom, if only once each, to fix the templates which use the redirect and clear the errors from the daily report. Certes (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The emoji is called blossom but it is further commented that it is a daisy blossom.[5] Taking the user to a page describing a different concept (the flowers of stone fruit trees (genus Prunus) and of some other plants with a similar appearance) is therefore misleading. I get further information from Codepoints that the CLDR project assigns these additional labels, e.g. for search in emoji pickers: flower. I was not aware of the 2019 discussion but feel that this requires revisiting in the light of the said information. For this reason, I support redirecting this emoji to bloom or to flower. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The actual official standard describes code point 1F33C as "BLOSSOM = daisy" (their emphasis). This seems confusing, as daisy flowers are not blossoms. The appearance of the symbol is not mandated and varies between implementations. Certes (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom is a synonym of flower. The code point specifically represents daisy, but it may be used more broadly as a depiction of a flower. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why it is necessary to edit war and when called out over edit warring, being accused of bad faith editing.

But you have the Official Unicode Consortium code chart saying the character represents blossom. And you have the 2019 RfD-discussion] where the community consensus was to keep the character redirecting to blossom. I have seen no arguments to doubt Unicode.org nor the redirect discussion. The Banner talk 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only person edit warring and acting in bad faith here is you. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual protocol in such cases is bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold change. I reverted it. Now we're discussing it. Simply repeating the reverted change might be considered impolite. But let's debate the most helpful target for the redirect, not who's the best editor. Certes (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of the symbol is not mandated and varies between implementations is important. For example on the same system (Xubuntu Linux) I see very different representations in the different browsers I have available - see screenshots (I can't work out the license for the Firefox or Konqueror emoji to upload them locally). In summary the Chromium is ; Firefox is a flower with a yellow centre, four very widely spaced white petals at the 1, 4, 7 and 10 O'Clock positions, a short green stem growing out of green grass; Knoqueror's emoji is black and white showing a small circle in the centre surrounded by 7 petals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This means that it cannot be limited solely to the flowers of stone fruit trees (genus Prunus) and of some other plants with a similar appearance. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, linking to a disambiguation page is not a good idea. The Banner talk 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the first constructive comment. I agree. Linking to Flower is better. ---TadejM ^{my talk} 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a method of expanding this argument out: Here is a link to Emojipedia's article on the emoji in question; the site documents the emoji's varied appearance on plenty of different sites, applications, and operating systems. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And never mentioned bloom or blooming... The Banner talk 20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flower per Plantdrew in the previous discussion and because blossom is a bolded aka therein. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Flower, but I wish we could just dump the emoji information on people instead. Either in a table we already have or the Wiktionary setup. Targeting the DAB page makes no sense as there is exactly one link there that is relevant to the emoji: Flower. The word blossom is used pretty interchangeably with bloom/flower - the best example is the emoji itself as it does not even depict a blossom, which are flowers that have five petals rather than the eight I count on my system). ― Synpath 05:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I count five on my system, but as we've already noted, emoji are notoriously inconsistent with details like this, and I've already posted a link to Emojipedia detailing a wide variety of different images pulled up by this emoji on different software/hardware/fonts.

  Another example is 🧃, which can depict, depending on software/hardware:
  -Apple Juice (iOS, Samsung, Microsoft/Windows)
  -Fruit punch?? (Modern Android default, Facebook)
  -Orange Juice (Twitter/Discord)
  -Sunny D??? (WhatsApp)
  -Lemonade (OpenMoji)
  Et cetera. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point, but it does seem like most depictions do not limit themselves to five petals, and some are clearly flowering herbaceous plants rather than tree blossoms. ― Synpath 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is always possible to add a paragraph in the article as it has been done with ☄, the astronomical symbol for a comet. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Without some sort of notable reason, I feel like including unicode/emoji info here is too indiscriminate. ― Synpath 17:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flower: most likely what people would search for with this emoji. DrowssapSMM 13:52, 10 April 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ship Island, Newfoundland and Labrador → Greenspond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as not clear why this redirects here, nothing about it in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the person who created this redirect has since been blocked for misusing multiple accounts. PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Google shows that the island exists, and is a part of or at least is directly adjacent to Greenspond (hence someone making this redirect). Looks like a harmless redirect to me, lack of information in the article notwithstanding. I don't feel strongly about this though. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above. It's a named geographical feature as well as a census subdivision, or at least it was as recently as 1911. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It should be mentioned in the target if kept or perhaps become a separate article but GeoNames doesn't have an entry for it but does for other islands in NL[6]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It is mentioned in the article and has been since its articles creation in the sentence "the largest is Greenspond Island, and the smaller ones include Batterton, Ship, Newell's, Wing's, Pig, Maiden, Groat's, and Puffin Island" 115.188.127.196 (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the IP, as this has been mentioned in the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as noted it is mentioned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 15 April 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).