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 Hemiptera. ^Complex/_Rational 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bug (insect) → Insect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Bug" is a general term... if someone is looking up "bug (insect)" that implies they are aware what an insect is. In which case they could look up "insect". If they look up "bug", they are conveniently directed to a disambiguation page. "Bug (insect)" implies that there's some kind of specific creature known as a bug that is an insect as opposed to other bugs which aren't insects. But this redirect targets "Insect". This is like redirecting Frog (toad) to Toad or, Legal (will) to Will and testament or maybe even Mammal (elephant) to Elephant. I really don't know what to make of it. I guess you could call it backwards disambiguation, but I fail to see what its purpose is. Cremastra (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiptera are considered to be "true bugs", so that's a possible better redirect target, but I'm not sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trying to make sense of it, my mind goes to Hemiptera. But I can't imagine that somebody who knows that bug (true bug) can refer specifically to Hemiptera would search for the Hemiptera article using this term. And I don't think there are very many people at all who are familiar with bug meaning Hemiptera who aren't aware that the word bug is also used for insects in general. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hemiptera. I think I'd be more prone to redirect to Hemiptera, but don't feel extremely strongly either. That said, it is the most precise, and it should be as simple as providing a hat note at Hemiptera for the Insect page. Since both articles discuss the bug name, that should also be enough to reduce any confusion if someone used the term bug and didn't mean an insect. KoA (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The weakest redirect to Hemiptera ever concieved to mankind The only insect that can be called "bugs" as a non-colloquial term are Hemiptera's User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hemiptera. There's only one thing categorized as a "bug" under the category of "insects". There's plenty colloquial usage making the two terms synonymous, but if you are going out of your way to disambiguate bug, calling it a type of insect, then the "true bugs" are clearly what you are looking for. Fieari (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with retarget to Hemiptera. This seems a very unlikely search term, but if someone goes to the trouble to spell it out thus, that is likely where they want to end up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hemiptera. "Bug" as a synonym for "insect" is a usage described by the online Collins dictionary as "mainly US and Canadian", and secondary to the primary meaning of "any insect of the order Hemiptera". Given that Hemiptera is the first definition of "bug" in Collins and in Merriam-Webster (for an example of an American English dictionary), there should be a search term that begins with "Bug" (rather than "True bug") and leads to Hemiptera, and Bug (insect) seems like the best candidate. Ham II (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason Fortuny Craigslist prank → Internet privacy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was a 2008 news story that has not really had sustained relevance. More importantly, it is not mentioned in the article at all anymore, so I don't see how this redirect helps anyone. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched the entire web for dozens and dozens of... milliseconds, when I conveniently found a slash. story that summarizes the incident in a nice easy to understand way. Here's the quotation in case you're too lazy to go onto slash:

"On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: 'Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?' He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in ... '178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and telephone numbers.' In a staggering move, he then published every single response, unedited and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia Dramatica."

When I read that Wired did an article on this incident, I was so close to voting !readd until I did further digging and realized that the Wired article in question was from "27B Stroke 6" which I highly doubt is reliable so. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:13, 29 January 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Winter Olympics medal table → 2026 Winter Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Basically the same rationale as Tavix at the 2022 RfD, there is no such medal table at the target. Nor can there be, no medals will be won for over another year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Sugar Bowl → Sugar Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2026 Peach Bowl → Peach Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2026 Rose Bowl → Rose Bowl Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No specific information about these events in their respective target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. In their current state, with the information at the target, these are misleading redirects for anybody searching for these titles who are expecting to find relevant information on them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — while these are scheduled sporting events for January 2026, it is WP:TOOSOON to create articles or redirects for them. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Najaarsuit Qaqqat → Upernavik Archipelago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Najaarsuit", and no mention of "Qaqqat" at the target article. People wishing to read about this mountain specifically, will not be able to read about it at the target article, misleading readers with the implied promise of content. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) who created this article as a single line substub in 2010, also created the redirect in 2021. As the entire encyclopedic content of this page has only been that single edit in 2010, all other edits not changing the encyclopedic content, except to redirect the page; there doesn't seem to be any page history to be concerned about. That single sentence that was encyclopedic content was (paraphrased) "NOMIKNATEDpage was a mountain in Greenland at TARGETpage". So there doesn't seem to be anything needing to be kept -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (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 14:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Kennedy (broadcaster) → FanDuel Sports Network Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. The redirect has a number of incoming links, which suggests that either the subject should be developed or all of those should be unlinked. BD2412 T 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

return to red. there's nothing of note in the history, so if someone wants to create or add something, it's better to start from scratch consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Nature Research journals#N. Jay 💬 19:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nature Water → Nature (journal)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Nature Water" at the target article; readers who might want to learn about water in nature, will not be able to do so due to this redirect, which is totally unexplained at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List_of_Nature_Research_journals#N Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain in some form per WP:DIFFCAPS; whichever target proves most popular for this relatively new potentially notable publication is fine by me. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:13, 28 January 2025 (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 Express#Periodicals. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Express newspaper → Daily Express  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous, as lots of newspaper use the word "express" in their name. There is also no page which contains the list of newspapers with "express" in their name, so this redirect should be deleted DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the section Express § Periodicals where there is a list and tag with {{R from ambiguous term}}. Skynxnex (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess now Express § Literature since the dab page was restructured some. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shhhnotsoloud: Why did you change Periodicals to Literature? Jay 💬 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a Level 3 heading in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. I've added an anchor for Periodicals. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As the section does not have Books/Novels/Short stories/Poems/Comics, I would have thought Periodicals was a good section title. Jay 💬 10:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the DAB as suggested above. I agree with Jay that "Periodicals" seems like a clearer section header. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (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 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Соединенные Штаты → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Соединенные Штаты Америки → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete as redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (point 8 of WP:R#DELETE)/per WP:RFOREIGN). Noting that the previous discussion was closed as a trainwreck, with the closer asking that these be renominated individually. I'm bundling these two together as they are both from Russian. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of country names in various languages (Q–Z)#U where it's mentioned. I'm also fine with keeping it due to the fact that Russia has colonial ties to the United States. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of country names in various languages (Q–Z)#U where it's mentioned. Oppose keeping per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I absolutely cannot believe that someone typing "Соединенные Штаты" is going to reach List of country names in various languages (Q–Z)#U and think "great, this is exactly where I intended to end up, thanks wikipedia!" At any rate, that article will turn up in the search results, and they'll realize when it does that they searched en-wiki instead of ru-wiki by mistake and leave. Just delete them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per asilvering. And the notion that prior Russian colonisation of Alaska somehow justifies an exception to WP:RFOREIGN is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly against the spirit of WP:RLOTE. I'm not convinced by the distant colonial ties, and I agree with Asilvering that it's hard to believe someone who searches for this would find what they're looking for at the list article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 28 January 2025 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthur Cadman → Arthur Kadmon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't believe people searching for this are more likely to be misspelling Arthur Kadmon than searching for people known as Arthur Cadman. I believe this is better off a redlink. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Search results reveal a couple of people named Robert Cadman who appear to fall a bit short of GNG. If there were anyone clearly notable by the name, I would vote firmly to delete. Similarly, were this individual more prominent, I would vote to keep as a rather plausible misspelling. However, it seems that this Arthur Kadmon, while technically notable, is not a particularly widely known individual, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that a typo of his name will generate a significantly greater amount of traffic than searches for multiple almost-but-not-quite-notable people whose names are spelled correctly. — Anonymous 05:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised, the 'Arthur Cadman' referenced here: [1] is Alfred Cadman. This appears to be the only incorrect listing of Alfred Cadman as Arthur Cadman from what I can find. This doesn't change my belief the redirect is better off as red-link, but does help show that 'Arthur Cadman' cannot be claimed by one person. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2025 (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 speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 00:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Israel and the Nazi analogy → Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted as referring to Israel comparing its critics to Nazis (something that has also been known to occur). — Anonymous 02:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete phrase as written not used anywhere on the internet except Wikipedia, and is ambiguous per nom. Rusalkii (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2025 (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 Gaza war. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Israel–Gaza war → Gaza–Israel conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Gaza war. No good reason this redirects to the broader conflict and not the war in question, per recent move of Israel–Hamas war to Gaza war. CNC (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gaza war. I agree with this suggestion. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gaza war per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC given its relatedness to "Gaza war," which in an RM was decided to be the the primary topic for that war. DecafPotato (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Israel–Gaza War already redirects to Gaza war. CNC (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gaza war, no good reason that Israel–Gaza war should redirect to a different page compared to what Israel–Gaza War redirects to. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2025 (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).