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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional element of a book which is not mentioned at the target, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this one as per nom, this is fancruft. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 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. Unopposed even after a relist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agorism.info → Samuel Edward Konkin III#Agorism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

With no incoming links or history, and especially the case after the merge of Agorism, the ".info" page for Agorism has no mention at the target article, nor are there any mentions of this .info page on Wikipedia as a whole. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a ((r from domain name)). There used to be a site at agorism.info, and it was last captured by the Wayback Machine in January 2022. - Eureka Lott 03:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @EurekaLott: For procedure's sake, are you !voting to keep this redirect? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. Thanks for asking, though. - Eureka Lott 11:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 27 March 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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unitary People's Liberation Front of Yugoslavia → Unitary National Liberation Front  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google cannot find the term at all. WP:RFD#DELETE #8 (novel term). Викидим (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "Unitary People's Liberation Front" is an alternative translation of the org's native language name ([1], [2]). The native language name formally contains what translates to "of Yugoslavia" to denote it refers to the central, federal organization, because there were also UPLF-s for districts. –Vipz (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects are not supposed to promote neologisms. If the historians did not call UNLF by this English name, we should not either. Викидим (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vipz. Seems that this is a term that is used to refer to the subject. Note that by including a redirect we are not in any way endorsing the name, and the only way most readers would ever know it exists is by searching for it. A7V2 (talk) 04:47, 29 March 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 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bodies (upcoming TV series) → Bodies (2023 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. We haven't left the era of substantial page views for this redirect yet, this is another premature nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Premature? The subject was renamed over three months ago!!! Want to see such a redirect that is clearly not a deletable redirect per page views? See One Piece (upcoming TV series); the nominated redirect is nothing close to that. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Time since renaming only one factor, and not even the most important one. These redirects should be deleted only when they have ceased being useful for readers. That a different redirect is getting more page views does not mean that the views of this redirect are "minimal". Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bobster1001 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• One, nothing wrong with this redirect as per Thryduulf, nonminimal page views = still useful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this misleading redirect that confuses readers, there is no upcoming TV series called Bodies (as it was released last year). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 29 March 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 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rustin (upcoming film) → Rustin (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. We appear to be approaching the end of utility for this redirect, but the stats show we aren't there yet. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then delete it now. An editor, me, has brought this up to get rid of this redirect when we ... literally are approaching the "end". Right, because editors live and breathe to renominate the same redirect over and over again... Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a big difference between approaching the end of utility and being after the end of utility, it is only appropriate to delete these redirects in the latter circumstance. Sometimes it takes only a few days to get from one to the other, sometimes it takes months. Regardless, deleting it prematurely is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. If anyone still finds the redirect useful-- and page views reflect that people do-- we need to keep it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this misleading redirect. No upcoming film called Rustin. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 29 March 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 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Giuseppe Bonifati → All the Money in the World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as ambiguous as a redirect and per WP:REDYES. This subject of this redirect was also in Ferrari (2023 film). Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this has history as an article but it has all been suppressed due to being a copyvio. A7V2 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 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 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Family Plan (upcoming film) → The Family Plan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Please note that this is an example of minimal page views - very low total number, multiple weeks with no views on most days. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 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 00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Godmother (upcoming film) → Griselda Blanco#Popular culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer to. I am assuming this redirect refers to Griselda (miniseries), but that has already been released. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete News articles indicate this was a movie announced in 2020 starring Jennifer Lopez as the subject of the target article. I cannot find evidence it entered into the production stage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Whatever it's meant to refer to, people aren't expecting to find it at this title - only 6 hits in the whole of 2023 and none before the nomination in 2024. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 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 Ring (chemistry)#Homocyclic and heterocyclic rings. ✗plicit 00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Homocyclic compound → Cyclic compound  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Homocyclic → Alicyclic compound  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Redirect to Ring (chemistry? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Ring (chemistry)? Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ring (chemistry)#Homocyclic and heterocyclic rings — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ring (chemistry)#Homocyclic and heterocyclic rings per the above. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 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 procedural closure. Target was deleted; tagging the redirect under CSD G8. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Retired2 → Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/participants/retired  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect left over from page move, not actively transcluded Awesome Aasim 20:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedurally close this discussion. The target is currently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/participants/retired. If the target is deleted, this redirect will be speedy deleted per WP:G8 via the reason on template ((Db-redirnone)). Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regardless of whether or not the target is deleted, this should be deleted. This pagename does not imply it is restricted to WPSOFTWARE -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:26, 29 March 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 Easter food. I'm reading the nominator's withdrawal as a direct expression of support for the rettarget option proposed by asilvering. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not discussed in target. I don't believe Easter dinner is special in some way other than being a dinner on a holiday, if there are some particular traditions around it then they can be added to the target article and the redirect kept. Rusalkii (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 18:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Easter dinner, afaik, is not special in any way (well, more than 'dinner on a holiday' is special), the way, for example, Thanksgiving dinner would be. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take "sentences that could only be spoken by an American", Alex. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Easter food. Easter dinner is absolutely special in many traditions (in mine, we eat lamb, for obvious reasons, but they're not always so obvious). Easter food is close enough. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing own vote to Retarget as per asilvering. also ow, but correct 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Easter food per asilvering. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As nom, withdraw my nomination per asilvering (I don't believe we can close the discussion due to Occidental Phantasmagoria's delete vote. I tried seraching for related pages but "Easter food" didn't occur to me. And as an American Jew(ish), guilty on two counts of having no idea what I'm talking about, thank you asilvering. My family followed (very irreligiously) some of the Russian traditions in Easter food#Other noteworthy dishes, even. Rusalkii (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, even without Occidental's delete vote, we do also have two Retarget votes, which would also serve to keep the discussion open despite the withdraw. Retarget votes aren't keep votes. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 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 00:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hans Brusselmans → Frans Timmermans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Timmermans lookalike, not notable by himself, not mentioned in the article. Confusing per WP:R#DELETE #2 Викидим (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• El séptimo sello → The Seventh Seal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Spanish has nothing to do with the 7th seal. Only English and Swedish does. See WP:RFFL JuniperChill (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLANG (aka... WP:RFFL, apparently. Huh.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN (aka... WP:RLOTE, WP:FORRED, WP:RFFL... This essay is not short of shortcuts!). Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 28 March 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. I am weighing particularly heavily that the nominator for this discussion flipped to keep, and that another delete !voter essentially conceded the point that this would direct readers towards malware. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Atimes.com → Asia Times  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Keep per Paul_012. This domain (now a redirect to malware) belonged to a different organisation called Asia Times. We risk confusing and misleading readers by having this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No sense in inadvertently directing users to a malware site. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How are they supposed to be different organisations? The article already covers the entirety of its history. Atimes.com was their old domain until 2019 when they moved to asiatimes.com, and continued to redirect there until it expired in 2020, according to the Wayback Machine. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich Farmbrough, could it be that you misunderstood the site's history? I see you recently mentioned on the target article's talk page that Asiatimes.com existed in 1996, but that's a different, unrelated site. Look at the Wayback Machine's calendar and you'll see that Asiatimes.com only became active in 2019, before which the site was at Atimes.com. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a good idea to lead our readers to malware. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunamann, Lenticel, in what circumstances would the existence of a redirect lead readers to the site? Redirects serve the reverse purpose. It leads readers who actually type in the domain to the article with which the domain used to be associated. The only way someone could be led to the site from the redirect is them checking "What links here" in the tools menu, then sifting through the hundreds of links (or selecting "Hide links") to find the URL, then deliberately typing it in the address bar. Anyone doing so would probably know enough to understand the risks. (Though maybe a warning template for such redirects might be useful.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. Still feels weird to have it here, though, especially without such a warning template... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it's the site's former domain name, as noted above and at D:Q727162. - Eureka Lott 15:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors are divided evenly between keep and delete after two relists. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keyboard faces → Emoticon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Emoji are also keyboard faces, but the title is vague enough that the current target is probably not the most suitable, if any. Contains 2 edits of June 2009 history. While it looks like patrollers were lax about the "online emotions" unsourced cruft list, let's just say that NPP today would not approve of the immediate CSD within 2 minutes of creation and conversion into a redirect immediately after 💀. (Looking back on it, at least the text was legible so it wouldn't be complete nonsense imo). Nevertheless, very 2009 :v Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete> The link between the redirect wording and the target is a real stretch. --Викидим (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: When I do a web search for keyboard faces, I see several websites with lists of emoticons, including one called keyboardfaces dot com. This indicates that term is used a reasonable amount. Kk.urban (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Searching the web, there are several encounters of terms like keyboard faces, Kawaii faces, ASCII faces, etc. We certainly do not need to emphasize on them in the target article, but for as long as there is no conflict with an established other meaning, keeping them is beneficial for users who enter the term into our search box wondering what it is. Deleting the redirect serves no purpose for our readers. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors are divided between keep and delete after two relists. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Emotext → Emoticon#EmoteXT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section title no longer exists. No mention of "EmoteXT" or "Emotext" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was merged and redirected following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotext (2006). Unfortunately the Wikiblame tool is currently giving me timeout errors when trying to find when and why it was removed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "Emotext" section of Emoticon appears to have been removed in this September 2006 edit by Stev0. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This referred to an interesting reference describing "emotext" I could find in archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20020616050736/http://members.kr.inter.net/yesunny/genderps.html --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the redirect as an R from merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Terms like "text emoticon" or "text emoji" are quite commonly used terms to describe text- rather than graphical-based emoticons. I consider the swapped "emoticon text" and "emoji text" to be equally valid variants, so "emotext" sounds like a plausible abbreviation used by some people as well. For as long as there is no conflict with another meaning, the redirect helps people to find content about a related topic when entering it into the search box. Deleting the redirect does not serve our readers. But if there is no longer a direct anchor for the term in the article let's remove the #url-fragment from the link. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1995 conference paper Gender, Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls describing "emotext" might also allow other link targets like "lexical surrogate", "metalinguistic cue", "intentional misspelling", etc. besides "emoticon". So, if someone finds a better link target in the future, it could be changed. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:16, 30 March 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. Jay 💬 07:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nhà Bè River → Đồng Nai River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nha Be River → Đồng Nai River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. I believe the Dong Nai (apologies for lack for diacritics) flows through Nha Be province, but I can't find any evidence that it is referred to that way. I don't read Vietnamese, so there may be important sources I'm missing. Rusalkii (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Nha Be River. Is there an automated way to bundle redirects for deletion, or does it need to be done manually? Rusalkii (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've a couple of times seen people list a bunch of redirects using a tool, then going back to bundle them after the fact manually. I myself have found it far easier to just manually list a bundle instead of trying to use a tool. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was going to nominate the diacritic-less version when I came across it, so thank you Rusalkii for opening this! The two are now bundled, as requested. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given that I was also planning on nomming this, it only makes sense I !vote delete as well. Not mentioned, unclear relationship, not a useful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Vietnamese wikipedia has more info, I've added a mention and source for this to the article in question here. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That source isn't ideal but is enough for me to agree that the redirect should probably stay, thank you for finding it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:08, 27 March 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 Fall of the Berlin Wall. This is consistent with the "keep" !votes, as they were articulated when only a single redirect, pointing to that targeet, was under discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• November 9 1989 → Fall of the Berlin Wall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• November 9, 1989 → 9 November in German history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect of a poorly formatted date to a particular event makes little sense, so WP:R#DELETE #2 ("confusion") applies. For the few ones who can remember a date, but not the event, there is 9 November in German history. Викидим (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This date is not simply 'poorly formatted'-- it's Americanly formatted! As the US was one of the two global superpowers pushing a side of the Cold War, one of the major events that marked the end of said conflict having a redirect written in this manner is far from surprising. That said, Retarget to 1989#November, which has not only a link to Fall of the Berlin Wall, but also a note that November 9th was when the 47th government of Turkey was formed. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American date with month in the first place needs a comma. A proper format would be November 9, 1989. I have no objections against redirecting the correctly spelled November 9, 1989. Викидим (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that these are redirects, not articles. We don't need to worry about what's pretty and perfect when naming a redirect, because not always will the general public type in something that's pretty and perfect. Instead, we need to worry about what's plausible for the general public to type. A dropped comma is perfectly within plausibility. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep checking a couple events: we have December 7, 1941 redirecting to Pearl Harbor, but no matching redirect without the comma. September 11 2001 exists, as does November 22 1963 for the Kennedy assassination. Support keeping per WP:CHEAP. Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search term and by far the most significant event to happen on that date. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: November 9, 1989 (with a comma) is currently a redirect to 9 November in German history. If the nominated page is targeted elsewhere as a result of this discussion, the page with the comma should be updated to match. - Eureka Lott 15:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 9 November in German history to align with the other redirect noted by Eureka Lott. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled November 9, 1989.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Fall of the Berlin Wall - 9 November in German history is inferior since the only event on this day it mentions is the fall of the Berlin Wall. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Pppery. Bizarre to send this to "... in German history" since it's a specific date. Mauerfall is absolutely referred to by date alone, so we shouldn't delete these. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 27 March 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st The Astra Creative Arts TV Awards → 1st Astra Creative Arts TV Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely error, doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet. Page was at this title for about a day. Rusalkii (talk) 01:23, 27 March 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. Jay 💬 12:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shemʿon VIII Sulaqa → Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This spelling does not seem to be used anywhere outside the Spanish Wikipedia. WP:R#DELETE #8 (obscure). Викидим (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rusalkii (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Please note that the name "Shimun" Shimun (Syriac alphabet: ܫܡܥܘܢ), also transliterated as Shemʿon or Shimon is the form of Simon used in Classical Syriac and other Aramaic languages. As the scope of the article is Syriac in nature and not Spanish, It would help various links to be re targeted and help Syriac Community as the pronunciation of the name is also based on the same, Thanks. J.Stalin S ^Talk 04:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The lead uses the phrase "Shemʿon line", so this seems a plausible search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 27 March 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).