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

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Draft-prod → Template:Proposed deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a bad redirect. It falsely gives the impression that WP:PROD can be used on pages in Draft. The original creation edit summary says that this process does not exist. We should not be giving the false impression that PROD can be used on Drafts. ~ GB fan 11:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a misrepresentation of policy per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. There are a number of drafts that end up getting prod'd even though they cannot be deleted via that method, so possibly deletion of this redirect will discourage that. Having said that, pretty much every draft I have de-PROD'd myself used {{Proposed deletion}} and not {{Draft-prod}}, so I'm not sure if this redirect is a huge issue itself, but probably easier to remove it as an option anyways. TartarTorte 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be hard to tell if this redirect is used. The Draft that alerted me to this redirect is Draft:Kashish Methwani. The only reason I knew that this redirect was used is that it was stated in the edit summary adding the Proposed deletion template that was added by subst this redirect. ~ GB fan 14:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think that people might subst it, but that makes a lot of sense that they do and I don't know why I didn't really think of that. Definitely delete under those circumstances. TartarTorte 14:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Presumably has something to do with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), but a templatespace redirect that has something to do with this failed proposal better not exist. Net negative.—Alalch E. 01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this template 4+ years ago, so I'm a bit fuzzy on my original rationale. It does seem highly irregular since draft PROD is not a real process. In my original edit summary, I cited I've seen this used so maybe people were trying to substitute a nonexistent template for some reason, but it's also possible I was just referring to the link on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), which would be much less justified.

  I do wonder whether deleting this template actually discourages people from erroneously substituting this template? To be honest, it probably doesn't matter much either way: if the template is deleted and people use it, then the only harm is the literal text {{subst:Draft-prod}} on the page. If it's not deleted, then there's a warning in {{Proposed deletion}} when it's placed on a draft: Please use PROD only on articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wouldn't mind having some prod-like process for getting rid of the drafts that are obviously never going to make it, without having to wait the six months it would otherwise take, but a redirect that pretends we already have such a process is not the way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabow's algorithm → Path-based strong component algorithm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This used to be a disambiguation page with one bluelink failing WP:DABMENTION and one redlink. I tagged it as g14 because it was not redirect-worthy, but User:Bradv failed to read the reason= string on my tag or for whatever other reason did the robotic thing and redirected it to the not-redirect-worthy target, so now here we are with more bureaucracy. For what it's worth: Harold N. Gabow has designed many algorithms. Searching Google scholar for the redirect title phrase doesn't find any consistency for calling one of them "Gabow's algorithm". We have no specific articles on any algorithms that are Gabow's alone, and several articles that briefly mention algorithms by Gabow but do not go into detail and do not call them "Gabow's algorithm". I think we would be better off not having a redirect than pretending that the neologism "Gabow's algorithm" should be used to refer to a class of algorithms in which Gabow is in a middle position in a long line of discoverers (as would be implied by the existence of the new redirect). We should also not retarget to the article on Gabow himself because that article provides no guidance on what "Gabow's algorithm" might mean. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If Path-based strong component algorithm is the only article we have about an algorithm designed by Harold N. Gabow, is it not worth keeping the redirect as an {{R from incorrect name}}? (If Gabow's algorithm could be too ambiguous for a redirect to one specific article, could the disambiguation page not be recreated in a way that complies with MOS:DABRED & MOS:DABNOLINK?)
  The previous dab page was getting a fair amount of pageviews (227 in the last 90 days), which indicates to me that a page at this title - be it a dab or a redirect - may well be worth keeping due to being a useful search term (per WP:R#K3 and K5). It’s also an {{R from move}} [1], and a page at this title has existed since 2007; both of which engage K4. As such, on the face of it, I’m quite reluctant to !vote to delete this redirect. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But Path-based strong component algorithm is not "about an algorithm designed by Harold N. Gabow". It mentions Gabow very briefly in one line, as the most recent rediscoverer of five publications on this algorithm.

  Among single-author publications on algorithms by Gabow, the most-cited on Google Scholar are

  • 579 citations for "Data structures for weighted matching and nearest common ancestors with linking"
  • 519 citations for "An efficient implementation of Edmonds' algorithm for maximum matching on graphs"
  • 343 citations for "An efficient reduction technique for degree-constrained subgraph and bidirected network flow problems"
  • 314 citations for "A matroid approach to finding edge connectivity and packing arborescences"
  • 309 citations for "Implementation of algorithms for maximum matching on nonbipartite graphs"
  • 229 citations for "Path-Based Depth-first Search for Strong and Biconnected Components

  That is, Gabow's version of the path-based strong component algorithm is well-cited, but far from the first thing people are likely to call "Gabow's algorithm". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Eppstein: I apologise if my wording earlier was poor - in hindsight, I’d probably replace the word designed with (re)discovered. However, I still concur with what I said — including, if Gabow's algorithm is considered an ambiguous term (as it seems it might be), could a MOS-conforming disambiguation page not be written/created? Either (depending on what MOS:DABRED says for each item) with a redlink for the algorithms without articles & a bluelink somewhere in the brief description of each algorithm; or the same but with only the bluelink?

  All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We cannot have a dab page without having multiple bluelinked articles for it to link to. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Notified WikiProject Mathematics of this discussion. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I read your reason tag. It's just not compliant with policy. And as mentioned here, someone may find the leftover redirect useful. – bradv 14:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Converting to a redirect forced a full discussion. If you had merely declined the g14 I could have tried a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Searching "gabow's algorithm" without quotes on Google Scholar doesn't show anything, but searching with quotes '"Gabow's algorithm"' [2] I get relevant results, 3/10 referring to the SCC algorithm. Also plain Google agrees with SCC, again the top 8/14 results are all the SCC algorithm, for example [3]. Also I asked ChatGPT what "Gabow's algorithm" and "Gabow's most well-known algorithm" were and in both cases the answer was the SCC algorithm. So I think the current redirect target is justified based on that.

Regarding the papers by citation count, the first paper is a data structure, not an algorithm; the second has a better name (Edmond-Gabow, as used in [4]); the third paper actually has another shortest-path algorithm (for undirected graphs); the matroid algorithm has that nice keyword "matroid" to use in the title; and "Implementation of algorithms for maximum matching on nonbipartite graphs" is his PhD thesis, which seems to be previously published papers. So I don't think this strongly argues against the current situation. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Plain Google" is irrelevant, since it samples unreliable sources; ChatGPT is irrelevant, because it's a stochastic parrot. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current target is unsuitable, the literature indicates no clearly unique answer for what the target should be (so elevating a particular meaning for the term "Gabow's algorithm" amounts to violating WP:NPOV), and we don't have multiple bluelinks to make a dab page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @XOR'easter: In regards to NPOV, redirects are allowed to be non-neutral. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion. Here, the term is not established. It's not like a case where the opponents of a particular law call it the Killing Adorable Puppies Act, and so we have a redirect from Killing Adorable Puppies Act to the official name of the legislation. In this case, the existence of the redirect itself picks out one POV as preferred: it says that the people who use "Gabow's algorithm" to mean one thing are right, and those who use it to mean something else are wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can provide evidence that the current target is called "Gabow's algorithm" at the expense of other algorithms by Gabow. It's not enough for it to just be the most common referent of that phrase. If there is one particular Wikipedia article I write that gets called "Tamzin's article" more often than any other, even if it gets an outright majority of such references, that doesn't mean that anyone thinks that, said without any context, the phrase "Tamzin's article" would clearly refer to that one. Alternately, someone could write some more content about Gabow's other algorithms and then restore the DAB. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Not a suitable redirect. Not a suitable dab if restored. Jay 💬 07:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a redirect to Harold N. Gabow reasonable here? The current target isn't mentioned on the page, but it probably can be added. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would raise exactly the same issues: either we violate WP:NEO/WP:OR by declaring one of the algorithms described in publications to be "Gabow's algorithm" (and note that Gabow was not the first to describe the current redirect target, and in an unpublished manuscript has credited it to Munro and called his own work a rediscovery [5]) or we leave followers of the redirect guessing at what might be meant by the link name. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Restore and send to AfD. Jay 💬 10:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters in the Paper Mario series → Characters of the Mario franchise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are no Paper Mario characters on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yoblyblob (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There actually are, they're just two-dimensional. You're looking at them from the wrong angle. Panini! • 🥪 17:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is one of the best jokes I have heard in a while. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was redirected to the current target following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 20#List of Paper Mario series characters. List of Paper Mario series characters was later deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#List of Paper Mario series characters. There was originally an article at this title that was merged following a proposal at Talk:Characters in the Paper Mario series#Well, I guess here we go. that attracted only one other comment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert and send to AfD. I have been unable to find any discussion about removing the Paper Mario series characters from the target article, so their removal from Wikipedia has never been discussed (the weak consensus was to merge not delete). I have no opinion about whether the list is notable, but it is not speedy deletable and so should be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with this outcome. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was merged in 2010, I can't see any problem with deleting at RFD rather then restoring for the sake of it. It doesn't seem like the merge discussion was contested and has been through RFD before as well so anyone wanting to restore would have been able to suggest this before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert and send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid redirect as people could be thinking of the mainline Mario characters in this game series, Mario, Peach, Bowser, Luigi, etc. Vivian should probably be on that list anyway per the article's own guidelines. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of Paper Mario.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Side note, no Paper Mario characters are in the target article because none of them meet its inclusion criteria. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Don’t delete - as an {{R from merge}} (per Thryduulf), the history must be kept for attribution (per WP:R#K1). Will probably add more later but wanted to get this down first. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a {{R from merge}} to me. Can you provide a diff showing a merge? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: See Special:Diff/345785156. (The {{copied}} template was applied to Talk:List of Mario role-playing games in Special:Diff/345785920.) Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no wonder I couldn't find it, it's at List of Mario role-playing games, not Characters of the Mario franchise. Thanks! -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Paper Mario is a significant-enough series to have proper discussion of its characters. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD Totally unwarranted unilateral redirect, that should have gone to a full discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Dikkatra Parvathi Poster .jpg → File:Dikkatra Parvathi.jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an example of a bad filename per WP:FILENAMES. It is not a poster (the first version wasn't a poster either), it is miscapitalised, and there is an unwanted space. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an {{R from move}} and per WP:FILEREDIRECT. It may have been a bad original filename, but FILEREDIRECT states that [i]n most cases the file redirect should remain, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria...or shadows a file on Commons. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT and {{R from move}} per A smart kitten. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 03:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Luigi van Beethoven → Ludwig van Beethoven  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Does not seem to be a valid alternative name. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a valid alternative name? See for example here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid alternate spelling/variant. See second paragraph of Cello Sonata No. 3 (Beethoven). Redirects are cheap, please google your nominations in quotes first—took my under ten seconds to find a solid keep rationale. Aza24 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Luigi" is standard Italian for Ludwig/Louis & as the linked early printed edition shows, this is how he appeared in early printed scores of his work, which by convention often used Italian (as we still use Italian for tempi markings). Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nikkimaria --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Madagascar chocolate → Beyond Good  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Anti-competitive-practice-style promotional redirect created by the creator of Beyond Good (a company that makes chocolate in Madagascar). Of course, Beyond Good is not the only producer of chocolate in Madagascar (see, for example, Chocolaterie Robert).Retarget to ? (I can't find a suitable target so I am bringing it here.) —Alalch E. 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more or less per WP:R#D10 (though any future article wouldn't be at this exact title). Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any suitable target right now. The mentions of cocoa/cacao/chocolate at agriculture in Madagascar, economy of Madagascar and Malagasy cuisine are so brief that they'd likely be unsatisfying to anyone who got redirected there after typing this into the search bar. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given there doesn't seem to be a suitable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Isfahan#News media. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 16:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Iran's Metropolises News Agency → Municipality of Isfahan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A news agency that is no longer mentioned at the target title. It was formerly present as one uncited word in a list, but I can't imagine this would be a likely search term for this news agency, nor one that would give readers any useful information about it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is mentioned in a cited list at List of Iranian news agencies where it is given this exact name. If it is notable it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, if it isn't then it should be retargetted to the list and the link removed. I have not investigated which is the case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to the list?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's the same as Iran's Metropolitan News Agency (IMNA), retarget to Isfahan#News media, otherwise delete as not useful. Jay 💬 11:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jay: Per the cited source there, it is indeed the same entity, and the name used in our article should probably be changed. Retarget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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