Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8

November 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2024.

Fpoon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30#Fpoon

Byron Cemetery

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 restore article. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery → Byron (disambiguation)#Places (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was an article about a cemetery. Someone thought it was non-notable, so they redirected it to the town it was in. However, then it was pointed out that there are (probably) several Byron Cemeteries. As is we are targeting this to a DAB page that does not mention cemeteries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article and put to AfD to see if this topic is notable. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per -1ctinus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. about half an hour of looking around gave me the byron public cemetery... but also other cemeteries in places named byron, other cemeteries named byron, people who turned into corpses and were buried in one of said cemeteries, and people who kicked the bucket while named byron. none of the results seemed reliable for an article, and no single cemetery got more than 2 results (that weren't obituaries, that is). the closest a "byron cemetery" came to being notable was the byron cemetery and mausoleum in fairborn, ohio, but even then, that specific cemetery is not mentioned in the city's article, and i still didn't find anything reliable about it. all of this is to say that i don't think there would be enough to work with for a dab

less prejudice against afd than usual though, seeing as it hasn't been a redirect for as long as anthem had been in development cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:41, 8 November 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).

Manual of Style:

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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style: → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

If this were the actual namespace, I'm pretty sure that it would be empty. Pretty sure most would just use WP:MOS. Even typing MOS: without anything in front of it would still get you to where you want to be. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Style guide, which is where Manual of style already points, and which already has a hatnote pointing to the WP:MOS. BD2412 T 20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if retargeted, this will probably become an implausible colon. if not retargeted, it will be a crime against the shift key. delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per BD2412 -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, implausible colon. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the colon. Not a namespace real or fake (unlike "MOS:".) Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real namespace and an extremely implausible redirect to any article in mainspace. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as implausible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 9 November 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).

Bibi the butcher

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi the butcher → Benjamin Netanyahu (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Although this "nickname" has been thrown around on social media, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept, it should be properly capitalized, making the primary form "Bibi the Butcher" and this an avoided double redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an exception to our guideline on neutral redirects if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, but a search of journalistic sources suggests this term does not appear to have met that threshold of establishment. I found it mentioned in letters to the editor and in comment sections but not in the prose of a journalist or scholar. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (also create and tag per the ip). This is a widely used nickname such that people will be looking for the name here to find out who it refers to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainstream sources do not use this derogatory term. What's next? A redirect for The Orange One for Donald Trump? Redirects are meant to assist readers who are genuinely trying to find the article they need, not to violate NPOV. Come on. Whizkin (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect does assist readers who are genuinely trying to find the article they need. A nickname used widely on social media but only very infrequently in mainstream sources means that it is very difficult for those who don't know who is being referred to find reliable, neutral information about the subject, making redirects like this more important. All we need to do is verify that this is a nickname used for the target (very easy in this case), whether it is also used to refer to other topics (this one isn't) and if so which use (if any) is primary (not relevant here, but not a cause for deletion regardless of the answer). "The Orange One" seems to be used to refer to a very wide variety of topics, mostly commercial products, none of them on the first four pages of Google hits being Donald Trump, so it isn't a relevant comparison (and even if it were, WP:OTHERSTUFF would still apply). Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per Hydrangeans. With respect to Wikipedia's guidelines on RNEUTRAL, this seems to me like a clear reason 3 delete (not to mention a potential BLP violation) unless it can be definitively shown that it is "an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources". LaughingManiac (talk) 17:35, 10 November 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).

Wikipedia:Retarget

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 (ironic) to Wikipedia:Redirect. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RetargetWikipedia:Retarget → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirect? I guess we gotta retarget the retarget. That being said, there is some basis for keeping if WP:RfD explains retargeting better than the former. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is super bizarre, and I just realized, that Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't seem to contain a clear section or set of instructions for how to retarget an existing redirect. The words "retarget" and "change" are mentioned a few times, but not in context in a way where a reader searching this redirect would be satisfied with the excerpt where these words are mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if you know how to create a redirect, you can probably figure out how to retarget one. You just change the target page in brackets to the one you want.

Probably doesn't need more than 2-3 sentences to explain. ApexParagon (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget (!) yes RFD mainly deals with deletion, people wanting to retarget would be better taken to the redirect page so better to ratarget (!) there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFD mainly deals with deletion Really? Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware most nominations are deletion related even if some retarget results come from deletion requests. More broadly is you want to know how to retarget in general you would go to the redirect page which deals with the technical things and if you wanted to discuss one you would use RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 14 November 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).

Good articles on Wikipedia

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 English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles on WikipediaGood articles on Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Good articles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Just checking to see if consensus on GA WP:XNRs have changed. This one was created more recently. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the readership has no idea the difference between GA/FA/A and this just misleads them into thinking these are the "good" articles, missing out the FA and A class articles -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a mainspace title pointing where it does, the redirect is WP:POV considering WP:CLUE#Readers. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment which is a mainspace article that includes an explanation of good articles on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support retargetting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or keep. Having an article discuss WP process probably makes most sense but otherwise I think adding "on Wikipedia" would make it clear its not for other things so I don't see a problem with a XNR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. I would be open to keeping also, though the use of "on Wikipedia" makes redirecting into mainspace seem more appropriate to me, because it sounds to me more as though they want a general explanation of what the concept is and how it relates to the way article assessment works on Wikipedia. Also worth considering though that someone might potentially search this wanting to see some literal good articles (ie. "show me good Wikipedia aritcles"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. and please notify the creator of the redirect, I was about to close this before I realized I created it... charlotte ^👸♥ 04:42, 16 November 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).

Murgh

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 Sorry, this is just a unsalvagable mess, with no agreement on anything to do. Three different retargets were proposed here, none of which were agreed to by anyone other than their proposer. And there's enough support for the status quo that I'm not forced to make a bartender's close. So it goes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MurghMurgh → Chicken as food (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Butter chicken (incidentally commonly known as "butter chikkin"). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FORRED. Retargeting as suggested above would be inappropriate too, since there's no particular reason to target this dish as opposed to any other chicken dish. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chicken, has passed into English usage, see Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

"Murgh" has not passed into English, and even the Wikt entry lists it only in a sense associated with Indian cuisine. So WP:FORRED still applies. Redirecting to "chicken" would be WP:HARMFUL, as it obscures information from the user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Wiktionary entry does list it as an English word. That it is only used in one context doesn't negate that - plenty of unambiguously English terms are used only in one context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?

My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.

I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say "someone looking for a topic we don't cover on Wikipedia, would be WP:surprised if they ended up at a topic we cover on Wikipedia". That's not at all covered in the essay that you linked to, which states "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read." Nobody would be shocked when they search the word "murgh", and see the only place where the topic of "murgh" is directly defined and discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. in Afghan cuisine). It would be different if there was no Afghan mention either, but there is.

We go by what we have, not what we want to, but don't have. If the Indian cuisine target is so important, someone would have added something related to that topic, to Wikipedia, at any point in time for the last two decades, or during the course of the discussion. Or in the future! When something is added for this Indian cuisine content, the term can be disambiguated and new redirects can be created. (Unless there IS currently-existing content related to Indian Murgh, but nobody seems to be stating that to be true. I have not found any that discuss the Indian terminology, on Wikipedia.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except you yourself have already linked to articles that discuss individual indian murgh dishes, Butter chicken and chana masala (which is the target of murgh cholay). Add to that, Murgh musallam, and Tandoori chicken, which-- while there isn't currently a 'murgh' redirect to it, its own article and the article for Indian cuisine#Punjab describe it as such. Clearly, the individual dishes themselves are worthy of having their own articles that could be linked to in a disambuigation, so I am honestly personally shocked that Indian murgh itself HASN'T been discussed somewhere. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are Indian topics such as Murgh musallam and Murgh cholay which exist. However, those can be navigated to by typing in the full name of their respective foods. It would not make sense to send Murgh to either or any of those, as a partial title match. Hence deletion is also on the menu, pun intended. :v On that note though, neither "murgh" nor "cholay" is mentioned at Chana masala, so perhaps that should be nominated too.

I feel less strongly towards deletion now that I know about the Afghan term, which is the only ___location where the term is discussed on Wikipedia, and thereby should draw the target by default. It is acceptable to have the word "murgh" as it is used in murgh musallam, be of a different origin than the target of "murgh" as it is used in Afghan cuisine#Chicken, which even that lists it as "murgh-e", but still better than nothing at all.

Based on the evidence present to readers in Wikipedia mainspace, only Afghan cuisine could be the primary topic of "murgh", on the basis that it is the ONLY topic covered (individually) on Wikipedia (as is the case while I'm writing this). I'm also opposed to a hatnote, especially if this redirect points to Afghan cuisine. What would a hatnote even say? "Murgh redirects here. For the term used as Indian cuisine, please see chicken as food which contains none of the information you're looking for about 'Murgh as Indian cuisine'"? Maybe at this point, we could just disambiguate something? But it would be quite hard to justify disambiguating a list of food WP:PTMs, which such PTMs are not supposed to be listed on dabs, but I digress... Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also re: the last sentence, this has been nominated since October 2nd. All the !keepers wanted to keep, regardless of it not being mentioned at Chicken as food, or the other suggestions where "murgh" was equally unmentioned. No evidence of usage for the Indian term of "murgh" has been aired beyond wiktionary. Now we're looking for Indian usages of "murgh" onwiki, only when the Afghan term has been brought to light? I've done a pretty hefty search myself and turned up nothing, but the best part is that if a mention is found for the Indian term later down the line, the redirect can be retargeted and/or recreated upon the revelation of such evidence, which does not even have to occur this week or this month. But in the meantime, we know what we know, and what I know is that it is mentioned on Afghan cuisine. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of chicken dishes. They are annotated link entries, but I guess no harm in embellishing the entries with local names, like how I did for butter chicken. Oppose retarget to Afghan cuisine, which is on the fringes of South Asian cuisine where this is popular. Jay 💬 19:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try please. Delete, keep or retarget? Since there is no update the agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 13:19, 8 November 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).

Snoutlet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Snoutlet

Bleach (games)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Bleach (games)

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 16:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC → Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#topic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think this redirect should be retargeted to where WP:TOPIC and WP:OFFTOPIC lead, i.e. to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Stay on topic.

Meanwhile, I have added a little note. Veverve (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I support disambiguating as a second choice , as per the editors below. Veverve (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. WP:OFFTOPIC is for content, WP:STAYONTOPIC is for discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There are two destinations for Stay on topic based on the subject of articles and discussion, with both the entry at Talk page guidelines and at Writing better articles essay. There is therefore no clear primary topic for this redirect to target. It otherwise shouldn't be redirected from guidelines to an essay about guidelines either. CNC (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per CNC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - I have absolutely no idea how someone is supposed to intuit that "OFFTOPIC" refers to content while the near-synonym "STAYONTOPIC" refers to discussions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:30, 9 November 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).

Thailan

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThailanThailan → Thailand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This ia plausible typo, but not a plausible misspelling. It might also be confused as a last name[https://namediscoveries.com/names/thailan Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. you can type that last d, i believe in you! also, i guess someone would have already had to type 7 letters to get to this redirect, as opposed to just clicking on the result that pops up as early as the first letter cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plausible typo, especially since that d isn't stressed and you can easily hear Thailan and not Thailand. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You call it a typo, but you go on to argue that it's a spelling error, which is different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mere smattering of google hits for the country, comparable to deleting other letters, like "thaland" or "thailad", and far more matches for this as a personal name instead. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the pageviews, which indicate that people do seem to be using this. With a little bit of searching I can't find anything notable that "Thailan" could be referencing other than the country (the only other hits I get are the odd social media profile where it's a first name, but no one with this name has a page or is even mentioned in article prose on Wikipedia), so it seems relatively unambiguous to me, and is surely taking the people who search it where they want to go (probably people who accidentally hit the Enter key before the last letter of the word). I also notice Wang Yang (subdistric in Thailan), which should probably be deleted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page views are minuscule and probably correspond to the occasional typo of hitting the enter key too early, as you even suggest, but that's a completely WP:UNNATURAL type of error to keep a redirect for. Any article with any title can suffer the same sort of typo. We don't (and shouldn't) have a Finlan redirect for similar reasons, for example. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also good catch; I've tagged that for G6. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 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).

Fortnit

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 14:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnit → Fortnite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. possibly even ambiguous with fortnight cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't anticipate huge numbers of people leaving off the final letter (or the two penultimate letters), and "fortnit" wouldn't be pronounced like "fortnight" or "fortnite", so any occurrences would be a combination of a mis-hearing spelling error and a typo. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 10 November 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).

Sputnik (serach engine)

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by Rsjaffe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (serach engine) → Sputnik (search engine) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Letter transposition in a disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G6, created as the typo and corrected within 7 minutes. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged accordingly. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:29, 8 November 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).

Mothra Leo

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 14:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mothra LeoMothra Leo → Mothra (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mothra Leo is a fan name and its simply a rumor, besides if its a rebirth trilogy, the Mothra should be named "MOTHRA", not Leo, otherwise Toho should've changed the names of the trilogy to "Birth of Mothra Leo". 121.45.246.200 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @121.45.246.200 does have a point though, even if I did read those three films articles in my point of view or someone else's point of view, they'd be like "Who the hell is Leo?", but I'm not a Mothra expert though, only a Godzilla expert, so yeah, I am agreeing with @121.45.246.200, someone might need to get this IP a scholarship or some sort of award. I don't know, I'm overthinking this. EIther way, I'm leaning towards delete

GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 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).

Banorant

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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banorant → Valorant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Apparently, someone tagged this as a misspelling. It's clearly fancruft. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as implausible, but more importantly, as a bad pun cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:14, 8 November 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).

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

NJHS

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 NJHS (disambiguation)NJHS (disambiguation) moved back to NJHS. Without context, seems Matthewjaredgarza2010 was attempting to revert their move, but could not; such moves can be requested at WP:RMTR, and this would have been a request I would have honored on there if made. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJHS → NJHS (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nominating this redirect on behalf of Matthewjaredgarza2010, who apparently wants to delete it, but has not specified any reasons for doing so. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

???, it seems like the move should be reverted, putting the dab page back at the main title. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:05, 8 November 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).

2029 in spaceflight

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 in spaceflight → 2020s in spaceflight#2029 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No relevant information on 2029 in spaceflight at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think it's possible for us, or anyone, to foresee in any particular detail what would happen to spaceflight in 2029, or any industry for that matter. Duckmather (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of planned future spaceflight launches#2029? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tavix's idea has merit, but spaceflight isn't exclusive to launches, leaving it so readers may not find what they are looking for if they are forwarded to that article section. Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that there is nothing there yet. A redlink would be fine. TiggerJay (talk) 07:22, 8 November 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).

Hat Simulator

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Simulator → Team Fortress 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hat Simulator 2 → Team Fortress 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible WP:FANCRUFT TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This is a meme-y way to refer to the game, that isn't limited to the fanbase-- Valve themselves sometimes refer to the game as a "war-themed hat simulator" in the ad copy for updates, with the first example I can find being the Mac Update of June 2010. Given I can't think of any other game or application that could be referred to this way, I'd say we keep. That said, my 'keep' would be a lot stronger if a mention were added to the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned at target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention at target. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 8 November 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).

PKS 0451-28

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/restore. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 0451-28PKS 0451-28 → Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a part of the target list, but it is one of 8000 and isn't mentioned as one of the notable ones there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the author BLAR'd the article into a redirect as nonnotable; speedy delete as author blanking page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why as vandalism? The author [1] converted to a redirect [2] with the comment it was nonnotable. All other edits to the page seem to be by bots or for copyediting. This would seem to be viable as a DB-author implied deletion criterion applicable. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, either CSD: G7 for speedy deletion will applied for criteria? Suggest if you want to enhancing the RfD's deletion. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. It's an article before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The author [3] of the article BLAR'd [4] it. So it seems the author doesn't think it's notable, per the edit comment on the BLAR. There doesn't seem to be other edits except bots and compyediting. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The author didn't blank the redirect, though. They redirected the article and have expressed no desire to delete the redirect. G7 does not apply to the current revision. C F A 💬 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 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).

Tesonet

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesonet → Tom Okman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete to encourage creation of the article. High trafic redirect with the only fact present being the year of establishment. Respublik (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [5] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An IP just removed the discussion link in order to write a description of the company in promotional language. If they can do it now, what's stopping a legitimate user or IP from doing so? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 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 Human Aquarium

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Aquarium → Hadji Ali (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It doesn't seem that "The Human Aquarium" is more likely to refer to Hadji Ali than to Mac Norton, whose article mentions the nickname in the lead, while Ali's only mentions the name six paragraphs down. Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what Paul_012 suggest above seems accurate, so this redirect appears to be misplaced, and perhaps a DAB page is needed instead. While Hadhji appears to have more views, Mac seems to be better known for that term, and they're both from a good long time ago -- so I'm not seeing that either is clearly the primary target. TiggerJay (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafted a dab at the redirect. Jay 💬 11:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambiguation, as nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 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).

DQw4w9WgXcQ

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Awesome Aasim reverted their opening of this discussion and removed the RfD tag from the redirect, but this discussion has accidentally been restored here. Procedurally closing this. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DQw4w9WgXcQDQw4w9WgXcQ → Rickrolling (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect to Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up". Yes this is the YouTube video code but I don't think anyone is going to search on Wikipedia this title. Awesome Aasim 02:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was recently closed as keep here. Doesn't look like anything has changed. C F A 💬 02:56, 8 November 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).

IRAS 13349+1428

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRAS 13349+1428 → IRAS 13349+2438 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom.~~ Also note that when created the edit summary was "Redirecting IRAS 13349+1428 to IRAS 13349+2438 since the designation does not exist on any databases" which seems like a reason not to have created this. If it doesn't exist why would anyone search it and why target it here? A7V2 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: I guess someone clicked on it somewhere on Wikipedia? There are dozens of Wikipedia articles that link(ed) to the misspelled redirect. Template:List of Seyfert galaxies, which is used on every article about Seyfert galaxies, has used the misspelled designation since 2015, and continued to use it until I corrected the template two minutes ago. Renerpho (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and keep. Even though the redirect is relatively new, this misspelling has existed on Wikipedia for almost 10 years. There's no telling if anyone saw (and used) the wrong name. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Also, just to be sure: There's nothing at all near coordinates 13h34.9m +14°28' (B1950.0),[6] ruling out the possibility that someone might be looking for an actual object with that name. Renerpho (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah makes sense. Since it seems to be unambiguous, happy to keep in that case. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you put the coordinates correctly in that sky map... by my calculations, 13h34.9m should be 13.58167, and 14°28' should be 14.46667. Leading to this. There's a faint object near it, but it's boatloads removed from IRAS 13349+2438.

This isn't a simply typo either, IRAS 13349+1428 vs IRAS 13349+2438.

I'm a delete on this one, and wherever the link is found should be updated to reflect what the source is meant to support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: See above for an explanation why this redirect exists. Do you still think it should be deleted? Renerpho (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting for inputs from a couple of more editors will not hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: I am asking because this discussion is now eight days old -- one day over the usual deadline. We could close it, rather than waiting for someone to relist it, if all the arguments have been heard. I take that to mean you still think there's more to discuss? Renerpho (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This decision should not be left to a person with my level of astronomy knowledge. Like I said, waiting a week or two more will not hurt since "no consensus" is equivalent to "keep". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this galaxy we created out of human error. It was a redlink from 2015 until last month. Now that Renerpho has removed it from the template, we should not retain this erroneous galaxy. If ST11 (who added it to the template in the first place) says this is a genuine galaxy, he may add it back to the template, but it will remain a redlink until we have some info on it, or if it is an alternate name, it may be recreated. Jay 💬 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I'd agree with you completely if this human error had been a recent one. But at 10 years old, I think the chance for it to have "transcended Wikipedia" is too high (non-zero). There's no harm in keeping it. Renerpho (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is 1 month old, hence recently created. What was 10 years old, was page content that existed as a redlink, and we fix page content all the time. Jay 💬 08:13, 31 October 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) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible typos should be fixed, not created as redirects. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty sure that's a typo, and typoes like this shouldn't be redirects. Procyon117 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is looking like a No consensus situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete above in a reply to an argument, so I want to make a record of it here, after the relist, since that's when my comment was made. Don't double-count my !vote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 9 November 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).

Putting wedge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Putting wedge

Ape Escape Racer

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 14:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Escape Racer → Epics (company)#Ape Escape Racing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

An extremely novel misnomer of an unofficial translated name of a Japan-only game. Is orphaned, which makes its unnecessary existence even less meaningful. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 8 November 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).

Stone Jesus

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Jesus → John 8#Jesus' dialogue with the Jews who had believed in Him (8:31–59) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I Googled "Stone Jesus" and most of the material that came up was about the resurrection of Christ. I just want to get some consensus about where this redirect should point. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Off the top of my head, and likely most plausible, searches for "Jesus" + "Stone" could be wanting to find: statues of Jesus made out of stone, the story of the stone being rolled away from his tomb, or his statement of "let he who has no sin cast the first stone". As a command-tense verb, it could refer to any one of the multiple times... (medium has an article saying there were 8 occasions) ...that people tried to kill him for what he said. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is about the command of the opponents of Jesus to stone him for perceived braggadocio of "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).Arbeiten8 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stone to death as vague. could refer to jesuses made of stone, or any of the wacky histories he has with stones (at least 5 if my memory isn't failing me) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per cogsan TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per cogsan TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 8 November 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).

Jimboboii

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 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimboboii → 2022 Buffalo shooting (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems to be one of the social media usernames of the perpetrator. Not mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete especially without a reference in the article, this seems to be a needless redirect. TiggerJay (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to not being mentioned, it is misspelled from what he used. Extra useless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:54, 9 November 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).

Lanyard class

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Lanyard class

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8

November 8

Fpoon

Byron Cemetery

Manual of Style:

Bibi the butcher

Wikipedia:Retarget

Good articles on Wikipedia

OFM Sykes

Marzipan joyjoys

Great Depression in the Middle East

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

Murgh

Snoutlet

Bleach (games)

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

Thailan

Fortnit

Sputnik (serach engine)

Mothra Leo

Banorant

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

NJHS

2029 in spaceflight

Hat Simulator

PKS 0451-28

Tesonet

The Human Aquarium

DQw4w9WgXcQ

IRAS 13349+1428

Putting wedge

Ape Escape Racer

Stone Jesus

Jimboboii

Lanyard class