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 Sex position#Genital-genital rubbing. Salvio ^giuliano 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Penile-penile sex → Frot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Penile–penile sex → Frot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Yes, the sex act would be considered the redirect's title according to the target article, but I don't see any reason for those two redirects to be kept while Penile sex got deleted back in 2019. I'm suggesting a deletion of both. Colgatepony234 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think the deletion discussion that you're referencing is the same situation as these redirects. In the delete discussion for Penile sex it was mentioned that it was not a common term, the term was too vague, and that there were several targets that you could argue as the appropriate destination. I don't think there's another article that would be a better target and, as you mentioned, Frot does seem like the appropriate place to target. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or retarget to Sex position#Genital-genital rubbing for disambiguation purpuses because that mentions both frot and docking. Skynxnex (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this ends up being kept... one of them though might have to be deleted. The one with the en dash seems more of a worthy candidate for deletion than the one with the hyphen-minus. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, per WP:CHEAP there's no reason to delete either one since they're not harmful and potentially useful. If it was an article, then I think Wikipedia:Hyphens_and_dashes suggests it should be "Penile–penile sex" (with a dash) but then we'd want a redirect from the hyphen (see many existing examples of articles with both dashes and hyphens). And some bots have/are making them. So no reason to delete either. Skynxnex (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to clear an old RfD log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Skynxnex. Jay 💬 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Skynxnex. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. The term could refer to multiple topics, and although there was a desire to treat the title-cased redirect differently from the sentence case, it was seen as simpler to delete both. If there are sufficient sources, this may be recreated as an article. Jay 💬 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Radical theology → Death of God theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Radical Theology → Death of God theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Way too vague and not used at the target as an alternative name. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this is less vague that nominator states but instead is maybe has dual-usages used both as term that is an aspect of death of God theology and as part of liberal Christian religion in the West beginning in the 1950s/1960s: Radical theologies: Radical theology as a field encompasses the intersections of constructive theology, secular theology, death-of-God theologies, political theologies, continental thought and contemporary culture.; The Call to Radical Theology: In fourteen essays, he explores how the death of God in modernity and the dissolution of divine authority have freed theology to become a mode of ultimate reflection and creative inquiry no longer bound by church sanction or doctrinal strictures.; The Return of Radical Theology: A Critical Examination of Peterson and Zbaraschuk, eds., Resurrecting the Death of God Process Studies 43, no. 2 (Fall/Winter ///Fall/Winter2014 2014): 29–46. https://doi.org/10.5840/process201443218. Some liberal religion movements after the 1950s have begun using it more to refer to their theology since they see it as "radical" compared to existing Christianity and because of their historical ties to the Radical Reformation. Maybe keep Radical Theology but delete Radical theology to leave room for WP:REDYES for that aspect, although there isn't as much non-primary source material for that as one may like. But mostly this is just a comment now. Skynxnex (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it currently points where it does because of a book by theologian Thomas J. J. Altizer titled Radical Theology and the Death of God. It sounds like disambiguation might be helpful. Unfortunately, despite being a theology major, I have never heard this term before, so I would struggle to explain what radical theology is in the lead sentence/phrase, but it sounds like it may just be a catch-all term anyway ([1][2] support this understanding). Following Skynxnex's sources and some I trawled on my own ([3][4]), I would propose Death of God theology, Secular theology, Liberation theology, Feminist theology, Queer theology, and maybe Christian atheism. Alternatively, we could just delete these redirects, which would be simpler. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Insufficient participation, and two relists have not attracted any new comments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nietzsche is dead → God is dead  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nonsensical redirect. Veverve (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's not inherently nonsensical, as it's a common joke, and at the time that the redirect was created this joke was mentioned in the "God is dead" article. It's no longer mentioned there, so the redirect may perhaps be confusing to some people. But someone looking up the phrase "Nietzsche is dead" has presumably seen it somewhere and is trying to understand its significance, and this redirect will probably make that clear to them, even with the article lacking any mention of the phrase. So on the whole I'm inclined to say the redirect should be kept. --Zundark (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this a snowclone "X is dead" then? Can that be elaborated in a section? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The (unsourced) quotes were removed in 2007 by an IP without explanation. Perhaps soft redirect to q:God#N where there is an description at the God is dead quote? Jay 💬 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Communism (journal) → Socialist Party of Great Britain#Breakaway groups  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect has nothing to do with the journal, nor libertarian communism. The username of the redirect creator suggests SPA. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This was an article before being redirected to the current target just a few days ago at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Communism (journal)). This journal is mentioned in the relevant section and appears to be the same journal that was discussed in the former article. A7V2 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious relevance / AV72. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 by Michig per G7. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Willian Ficthner → William Fichtner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Mispelling of surname, I am pretty sure nobody would even use the redirect. He is credited as Willian Fichtner in the end credits for his role as Ken Rosenberg of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Suggest deleting. Regards, ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a WP:G7 (nominator is creator), and I have no idea why I was notified. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not a move. I did not see myself writing Ficthner at all. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Never said it was a move. See this edit where you created this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 history and restore article. Jay 💬 14:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Crescent Heights High School (Calgary) → North Calgary High School (Calgary)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Substantial article about Crescent Heights High School (Calgary) has been redirected to North Calgary High School (Calgary), a non-existent high school (currently under construction). Since the old high school is still open and active (website at [5] has been updated as of 3 March 2023), this redirect would seem to be unwarranted. Guinness323 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP; people might still be searching for the old school. However, I am also fine with deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. The old school still exists, is open and functioning. This appears to be a redirect to a new, as yet unbuilt school in a completely different part of the city that has nothing whatsoever to do with the old school. I hesitate to use the word vandalism, but blanking the old school's wiki article like this strikes me as a prank. Guinness323 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm currently attending crescent heights high school. The school is not closing and I (along with many others) will be continuing to attend it for the next 2 years until I graduate. I'm not sure why the wiki page for crescent heights would be redirected if the school is still operating. 2001:56A:78BE:9D00:1D21:F1C:D88D:62AD (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HISTSPLIT the target article and move the version prior the overwrite back to its original title. - Eureka Lott 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This was an article about a school called "Crescent Heights High School" before being overwritten and moved without justification by Smfjaagesund to be about "North Calgary High School". This should either be reverted or history split etc (I don't know technically what that would be called). (So in some sense I am saying to restore the article). If the old article was somehow unsuitable etc then it should be deleted by the usual process (AfD), not hidden in the history of a different article. A7V2 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Split article per Eureka Lott. Not a renaming of the school. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).