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 23:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hinduism in Bolivia → Religion in Bolivia#Buddhism and Hinduism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Hinduism is no longer mentioned in the target article because the target section was entirely unsourced and removed. Wikipedia has no information on Hinduism in Bolivia. Binnenstaat (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hinduism in South America exists, but doesn't mention Bolivia (it's just about the only country that it doesn't mention though). Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - redundant. JimRenge (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being redundant is not a reason to delete a redirect. I'm also unable to work out what you think this is redundant to? Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Can be recreated if/when relevant material is added either to the current target or to Hinduism in South America. A7V2 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Horst Schumann (politician) → Socialist Unity Party of Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirecting Horst Schumann to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany page, where he is never mentioned and to which he has no connection to other than being a party politican, creates confusion for people looking him up. I wanted to actually create the Horst Schumann article and am instead faced with this unnecessary and unhelpful redirect (WP:RDELETE No. 9). The redirect is unprotected, but Horst Schumann (politician, born 1924) is the better title for this specific article IMHO. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maxwhollymoralground: As stated at the top of WP:RFD, you can just go ahead and create the article if the redirect is unprotected. Typically, article titles won't include a birth date unless needed for disambiguation purposes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so it can be a redlink. Jay 💬 15:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for redlink Okmrman (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ottoman–Azerbaijani Wars → Ottoman–Persian Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:TENDENTIOUS and revisionist title created as a result of pov pushing. Azerbaijan(is) were not even a nation nor ethnicity at the time [1] [2] [3] HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect from a page move that was clearly POV pushing and inaccurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Russo-Azerbaijani Wars → Russo-Persian Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:TENDENTIOUS and revisionist title created as a result of pov pushing. Azerbaijan(is) were not even a nation nor ethnicity at the time [4] [5] [6] HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect from a page move that was clearly POV pushing and inaccurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tree Trunks (Black & White World) → List of Adventure Time characters#Tree Trunks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Peppermint Butler (Black & White World). The Black & White World appears for one episode as a gag. It has very little relevance to the franchise as a whole. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom + how I voted in the linked discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess Bubblegum (Black & White World) → Princess Bubblegum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Peppermint Butler (Black & White World). The Black & White World appears for one episode as a gag. It has very little relevance to the franchise as a whole. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + how I voted in the linked discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Peppermint Butler (Black & White World). The Black & White World appears for one episode as a gag. It has very little relevance to the franchise as a whole. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + how I voted in the linked discussion. Deja vu. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. WP:SNOW keep as a standard verb redirect, there doesn't seem to be a reason to force it to continue much longer. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Genociding → Genocide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

unnecessary suffix Okmrman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a typical {{r from verb}}—and yes, it is a verb, according to the OED. - Eureka Lott 23:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag as per Eureka Lott. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag, also per Eureka Lott. — The Anome (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barbie: Dreamtopia (season 1) → Barbie Dreamtopia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This title was created by a banned user for a supposed season for the target indicated, which later turned out to be both a series of shorts and 11-minte series episodes. Half a decade later, this title serves no purpose as it's currently and merely a redundant redirect, so requesting deletion. Intrisit (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was setindexify. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Madhukar → C. V. Madhukar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are 36 articles for people whose name includes "Madhukar" and this is not the best target. Delete to encourage an anthroponymy article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't we just SIAify it directly? Don't see a need to delete first. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D171:C3F2:2FA6:EB57 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, go ahead... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D171:C3F2:2FA6:EB57 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Set indexify using the IP's draft. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Set indexify using the IP's draft. Okmrman (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Natsu (dog) → Squeezie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Was a four-sentence article about a YouTuber's pet dog, now redirects to the YouTuber's article, an article which doesn't mention and has never mentioned his dog. Belbury (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — The Anome (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I have been convinced enough that it should be a new article unrelated to the old one that was at this former spot, so RfD no longer applies here. As suggested, I'll be moving the old article to a different location to preserve the old page history. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Simulated reality → Simulation hypothesis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page was successfully merged in 2023 - which I still agree with. However, I think that the redirect that replaced it is still not a good idea. "Simulated reality" is too vague a term to refer solely to the simulation hypothesis. It can refer to virtual reality, augmented reality, live-action role-playing or "Potemkin village" situations where everyone besides one person is an actor. In other words it's overly vague to redirect to where it is going now.

A possibility is to move the page to a holding location to preserve the history and introduce a WP:REDLINK, or move it in favor of a disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate: since there are clearly several obvious possibilities, as stated above, turning it into a disambiguation page would be the best idea. — The Anome (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that the page has an extensive history and should not be turned into a dab page. It ought to be moved out of the way first to some manner of holding location. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converting it into a disambiguation page will still preserve the page history; all of the previous article content will remain accessible to anyone who wants it. — The Anome (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a form of article hijack and is inadvisable. As the essay says, combining the history of two pages with different purposes causes confusion and can be difficult to untangle even if the original article has no redeeming content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a {{R from merge}} the history needs to be kept somewhere. Converting a redirect into a disambiguation page is quite normal, but if it's undesirable in this instance then move it to a different title that unambiguously refers to the target - Simulated reality (hypothesis) perhaps (Simulated reality hypothesis already exists). Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not ambiguous concepts, but variations on a theme. This is the title for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. I have revised the draft accordingly. BD2412 T 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely think it could work, though it does need proof in actual sources that it would pass GNG separately from the simulation hypothesis. I did find a potentially useful source here that, while primarily discussing the simulated reality in The Matrix, also mentions there are other such works, including The Thirteenth Floor, which has at least two layers of simulated reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are some more potentially useful sources: [7] [8] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Particle wave → Wave–particle duality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This neology, likely invented by Feynman in his characteristically off the cuff fashion, is not used other textbooks. It combines two nouns which, throughout the history of physics, have meant incompatible alternatives. It not a synonym or antonym for "wave-particle duality". On the contrary, "wave-particle duality" is the concept of "duality" not "composition" or "ambiguity". The mere existence of this redirect was cited in Talk:wave particle duality as evidence for the term. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the one hand, this is pretty solidly WP:NEO. Except, on the other, I can easily see someone either typing it into the search bar because of Feynman, or simply typing in "particle wave" or "wave particle" into the searchbar specifically to get to this concept, the way one might type Jobs and Wozniak to get to History of Apple Inc. Given the target article discusses the intersection of the two concepts of "wave" and "particle" in a manner that satisfies WP:XY, I'd say let the redirect stand. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It might sound contradictory as a term, but it makes sense as a redirect. That is, it's a thing someone might search for, either because they saw that quote from Feynman, or because they read any of the zillion other things written about quantum mechanics and had some memory that it involved waves being like particles or vice versa. Harmless and points to the right place. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above, particularly this being a likely search term for someone who has sort of heard about the wave-particle thing and wants to learn more about it. Wikipedia is exactly the right place to do that and we should make it easy for them to find the content they are looking for, and this redirect does just that. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this should be an SIA, as it could be referring to a de Broglie pilot wave, the matter wave, and the particle dynamics of condensed matter waves -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a set index at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep consistent with Particle-wave (and Wave-particle). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per XOR'easter and Shhhnotsoloud above. — The Anome (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rolling around at the speed of sound → Sonic Adventure 2#City Escape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Lyric from a Sonic Adventure 2 song that is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term. Popcornfud (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song IS mentioned and discussed in the article-- The theme song for City Escape was composed by Jun Senoue, who first worked on Sonic Adventure 2 after moving to San Francisco... The "Escape From the City" theme was featured as a selectable song in the Sega rhythm game Samba de Amigo: Party Central. The theme also received an Irish remix by the band Hyper Potions in collaboration with Senoue as part of a collaboration between Jacksepticeye and the Sonic social media account on St. Patrick's Day. As for the likeliness of the search term, this is literally the first sung lyric from the song, and has become pretty notable as a phrase associated with Sonic himself. It'd be like saying I wanna be the very best shouldn't redirect to Pokémon Theme. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I'll reiterate, this is a lyric that is not mentioned at the target article. There's thousands and thousands of songs, with hundreds of lyrics in each (unless it's Tequila), and nearly all (suitably) don't have individual redirects; Wikipedia is not a lyric compository. R from lyrics are for lines in a song to a source that "describes the lyric", which this is not, and so far there does not seem to be a reason why this unmentioned line would defy that. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I understand why this was created, but it feels like any attempt to give this proper context in the article is going to feel forced and excessive detail when read in the game's article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft redirect to Wikt:eepy. Jay 💬 09:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eepy → Somnolence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Meme not mentioned at target. If I was searching for "eepy" I would not want content on sleepiness but the meme. Also, "eepy" generally refers to sleepiness in general, not just excessive sleepiness. If kept I suggest a retarget to Sleep, though note also the existence of EepyBird. Rusalkii (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The... lack of existence? That's a redlink. A quick search indicates you meant Eepybird, before revealing that their website actually alternately lists it as both Eepybird and EepyBird... one second, creating a long-overdue redirect. In any case, oppose retarget to Sleep on the grounds that Somnolence IS about sleepiness in general, not just excessive sleepiness. In addition, also oppose retarget to Eepybird on the grounds that someone searching "Eepy" in 2024 is a thousand times more likely to be looking for the meme synonym of sleepy, rather than for a company whose main claim to fame according to its article was dated to 2007. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for catching the redlink. And yes, on a more careful read agree that somnolence is more appropriate than sleep if kept. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the word "eepy" is a meme but principally it is a slang for sleepy. It seems like the OP and the one opposer also agree eepy means sleepiness (""eepy" generally refers to sleepiness in general..." and "searching "Eepy" in 2024 is a thousand times more likely to be looking for the meme synonym of sleepy...") So... why not just have it linked to sleepiness as it is now? This is the agreed upon synonym/slang that eepy is referring to. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good point. If it's all right for a marked, known slang synonym of a word to be redirected to its meaning without need for a source, then I'll happily and eagerly change my vote to Keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we're going to have redirects from neologisms/memes/slang then they need a mention to avoid confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wikt:eepy, which has more information about the term than anything on Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Okmrman (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Soft redirect to wikt:eepy Okmrman (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect as per Eureka and Okmrman. Good catch! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think soft redirect is a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bang and the dirt is gone → Reckitt#Cillit Bang viral marketing controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Meme not mentioned in page. Section isn't about the meme or even the commercial the meme is from, but a related blog marketing campaign. Note that this is by a user who has created a number of recently-nominated redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect is a quote from Kitchen Gun, a parody of the Cillit Bang marketing campaign that is mentioned in the Wait no, scratch that, this isn't the Kitchen Gun meme- it's the slogan from this ACTUAL ad for Cillit Bang. Shows how familiar I am with Cillit Bang's advertisements, lol. In any case, what I do find odd is that that section is... honestly rather confused? It's titled as if it's all about the viral marketing controversy, starts out talking about the television ad campaign instead, switches gears and talks about the viral marketing, then switches gears AGAIN to suddenly talk about Kitchen Gun, which is inspired by the television ads, not the blog. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Saw this go by at the time, thanks for catching, delete per nom as a not-mentioned blog marketing campaign. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hasya Movies → Razesh Danda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Hasya Movies or "Hasya" not mentioned at the target article, unclear connection to subject based on article contents, external searches did not show Razesh. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add mention then keep. My external search (using the string "Hasya Movies" "Razesh Danda") finds multiple hits that give the connection, e.g. "Razesh Danda is producing the movie under the banner of Hasya Movies, in association with AK Entertainments.", "Razesh Danda [...] is presently making some different genre movies, under Hasya Movies banner", "Razesh Danda is producing the movie under the banner of Hasya Movies, in association with AK Entertainments." [I can't link due to a filter] I'm not quite sure what the connection is exactly, but there are enough hits in apparently reliable sources that a mention seems verifiable and due. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Unlike many of the redirects being discussed here, adding a mention at the article would actually be outright beneficial. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf. Okmrman (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. While only two !votes explicitly call for deletion, both the nom and the "oppose" !vote make arguments that are also consistent with deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Food street → Pakistani food streets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Food Street → Pakistani food streets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As noted by the page mover, the term "food street" can be highly ambiguous and exist all over the globe, evidenced from searching "food streets" on Wikipedia. Street food looks like the most suitable term out there, which branches off into Street food of Mumbai, Street food of Chennai, etc, although perhaps there is a difference between this and the multiple food streets, such as Gawalmandi Food Street or VV Puram Food Street, etc. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retarget to Street food. Feels very ah... how do I put this, Mad Hatter-y? "You might as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see.'" A 'food street' would be a street where food is sold, while 'street food' is instead food that is sold on the street. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just read over the Street food article, and it seems as though it is a mix of describing the food sold on the streets in the top section (street food), and then the next section describes the shops that are on streets that sell food (food streets). In fact, at this point, looks as though this article is not sure which topic it is meant to refer to, and the top section may need rewriting to accommodate both concepts and/or the article may need splitting. Not sure at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if THAT ain't a WP:SURPRISE and a half. I do concur that that article needs a rewrite and/or split, though I'm going to hold my vote where it is for now-- mostly because, while you're correct in that that's where the information is now, it doesn't feel like it should be where the information SHOULD be. (It's a bit like the discussion a while back on Not real, and how I mentioned that the option that seemed most correct would be to redirect it to Real, except that the idea was silly.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Food Street to the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Street food since the concept of "food streets" seem to be explained there, though the top/lead section is not too clear regarding explaining that both concepts (food sold on streets, and the streets which the food is found) are present in the article. (The article may need a bit of a rewrite or some splitting into another article, but it seems at the present time, the concept as defined by the redirects is present in Street food.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These terms are ambigous and this target is likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shhhnotsoloud Okmrman (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Surat Metro stations. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bimrad metro station → Surat Metro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Bimrad" is not mentioned at the target article; Bimrad metro is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Unhelpful for people that search this term to end up at a page without relevant content. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mark as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Bhimrad metro station and {{R from misspelling}}. "Bimrad" is a very plausible misspelling of "Bhimrad", which is the name of a station listed in the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bhimrad is not the name of a station listed at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops, I must have gotten confused which article I was looking at. Retarget to List of Surat Metro stations, which is where it is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Surat Metro stations. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberal Focus Team → Liberal Party (UK)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Liberal Alliance Focus Team → SDP–Liberal Alliance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Focus team" is never mentioned at the target page, and the sparing mentions of "focus" and "team" are not in context of any sort of Focus Team. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've also gone ahead and bundled "Liberal Alliance Focus Team", which has even less mentions of "focus" or "team", i.e. zero mentions in any capacity. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Lib Dems (and their precursors in the Liberals and the SDP-Liberal Alliance) have fielded election candidates under the banners of 'Liberal Focus Team' and 'Liberal Alliance Focus Team', usually in local elections. For example, take a look at the results of the 1986 London Borough Council elections. On a related note, they still stand 'Liberal Democrat Focus Team' candidates in recent local elections across the country. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm gonna just comment since I'm the one who created them but the reason i created the redirects is because it is a distinct description used for dozens of candidates fielded by those parties in the 1970s and 80s TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention yet of the terms at the targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbf the main problem with that is finding somewhere in the articles to shoehorn in the mention - seeing as those articles cover the bigger picture (not their efforts in local council elections) so there's nowhere to put the sentence of 'during local elections, some Liberal/SDP-Liberal Alliance candidates stood under the banner of the Liberal Focus Team/Liberal Alliance Focus Team' (however, there was somewhere to mention the Liberal Democrat Focus Team in the Liberal Democrats (UK) article) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kimomo Uwizeye → Marc Uwizeye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Combination of legal last name and last name of persona; never referred to this way anywhere I can find. Rusalkii (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I should probably close this since I already have another discussion relating to this topic. (non-admin closure) Okmrman (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's dangerous to go alone! Take this. → The Legend of Zelda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

See It's dangerous to go alone! Okmrman (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Retarget - per the rationale at the discussion here. (I find it baffling that this was nominated after the trajectory of that discussion.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Legend of Zelda (video game) as per discussion linked by Sergecross. I don't exactly see why I'd vote any differently here than I did there. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – despite the fact that this phrase is well known in the gaming community, I don't feel that it is notable enough even for a redirect. Its presence feels to me like nothing more than an Easter egg / fan service. Despite being a huge fan of ST:TNG, I would feel the same way if someone wanted to create a redirect for "Tea, Earl Grey, hot" – which, upon checking after typing that, I see that they have.   — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see how you'd come to this conclusion, but that's not quite right. Up until about a week ago, it was actually its own stand-alone article. This is actually the result of a WP:BLAR by Cukie Gherkin. Which I believe was the right choice, it just needs to be worked into the redirect target better now. Which would be easy to do with the sources from the article and what I listed at the other deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Anarchyte (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 7.7 → 7 July 2005 London bombings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

yeah 7.7 is supposed to be a date but first result would usually be bullet types Okmrman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is ambiguous with various articles begining "7.7 cm" and with varouis articles listed at 7.7 mm. Using Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The event is known as 7/7, not '7.7' 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As too ambiguous. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Anarchyte (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wildfires in 2025 → List of wildfires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect is unused and will create an unwanted forward link in the navigation boxes. Right now, due to an article name convention change, the navigation itself, {{Infobox wildfire}}, uses the wrong article title for the seasons, which you can see by hovering over the forward link at Wildfires in 2023. But that is going to be fixed.

Alternatively, we just leave things the way they are, let the redirects do their thing, and I already had 2025 wildfire season removed, so we're good. But I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. The problem with this is that by not correcting the navigation template, we have to remember to create a new redirect for [Year] wildfire season every year. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete B3251 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. It's not 2025 yet. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and recreate when appropriate. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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