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.

• Retarget Gingerbread Man (Shrek) to Shrek (franchise)#Cast and characters
• Retarget Gingy to Gingerbread man _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Gingerbread Man (Shrek) → List of Shrek (franchise) characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gingy → List of Shrek (franchise) characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Please delete these redirects. The section of the character doesn't exist in the target anymore. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:4DD9:7138:4DA4:D669 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gingy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there was a mass trimming of the character list a month ago, so this should be revisited if some of them are restored with more appropriate descriptions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first to Shrek (franchise)#Cast and characters, and the second to Gingerbread man. Jay 💬 16:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Shrek (franchise)#Cast and characters, Gingy is part of the franchise. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no mention of Gingy at Shrek (franchise)#Cast and characters. but there is at other sections. Jay 💬 08:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just do per comment on 22 May 2023. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 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 keep. Jay 💬 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows (2001) → Windows XP  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Yes, there are Windows (year) redirects without the parentheses, but I have never seen this convention used for any other Windows (year) redirect where the year is in parentheses. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the reader wishes to know the Windows that released in 2001, having suffered a temporary mindblank, they might... J947 † ^edits 06:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for the same reasons as above. I feel like there could be a few occasions when it may be useful for someone searching by year only or not necessarily knowing what was released back then (it was 20+ years ago after all). It isn't erroneous so I don't see harm in keeping it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947 and Bungle. Plausible and harmless. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:05, 22 May 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PasteIt Notes → Post-it Note  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I have never head about these sticky notes being referred to as these; also, target term not mentioned in article. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I do not, I have personally heard multiple other people in multiple locations up and down the east coast (USA) use this term. Does not need to be mentioned in target to be useful for those people who use this term. Redirect is unambiguous and useful. Fieari (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fieari. A7V2 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 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. Jay 💬 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hairy beast → Mammal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While any hairy beast is a mammal, this is an improbable search term for that topic Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are several articles that have "hairy beast" in their content but none seems to be a good target candidate. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Revisit if there are some characters with those names. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – better to let readers look through the search results for this one. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Did not find any reliable sources calling mammals "hairy beasts" online. Carpimaps (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Hair#Evolution as a possible search term? A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel brothers → Daniels (directors)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The two directors share a common given name but are not brothers, nor biologically or informally. Title is erroneous and there are no expected occasions when the link would have any valid usage. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. This one doesn't make sense to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't make sense, not to mention there is actually a cinematographer named "Daniel Brothers". —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:19, 21 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Beach(Avatar: The Last Airbender) → Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)#ep45  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No space typo and unlinked from anywhere. The Beach (Avatar: The Last Airbender) exists. Gonnym (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I get it, this was the original name before the move, but why should we keep it when it's been updated? It also has a really low number of pageviews. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:42, 17 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Roy Hill (dismabiguation) (disambiguation) → Roy Hill (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:RDAB. This redirect is not a plausible or useful title because of the double disambiguation and typo. Unfortunately, the speedy criterion R3 is no longer valid, otherwise I would have tagged this redirect already. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notify the redirect creator @Rodw: Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and housekeeping. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 16 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Next → Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Next  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Directing a very short name from a less well-known project is an incorrect choice Q𝟤𝟪 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Target is a very old, abandoned project or proposal from August 2005. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no one typing this would be expecting to find an abandoned Pokemon project. The only thing I can find is the essay Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing and while more relevant I don’t think is needed.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 23:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As implausible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:52, 21 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Raid on Fumio Kishida → Saikazaki bombing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

How is this a raid? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not a raid.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a raid, so the search term doesn't make sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging ただの記事執筆者 who twice moved the article to this title but was quickly reverted both times. A7V2 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 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 disambiguate. There was no consensus on a primary topic. Further discussion on moving the Egyptian place to the base title may done at WP:RM. Jay 💬 08:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Garagos → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not currently mentioned at target. Note also Garagos, Egypt. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to account for Garagos, Egypt, move the current article to Garagos (Forgotten Realms) and retarget it to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Deities of the Forgotten Realms. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I moved the page history as suggested, but I did not do the retarget or disambiguate pending a decision here. BOZ (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Garagos, Egypt to Garagos as primary topic and add a hatnote. Retarget Garagos (Forgotten Realms) as suggested. J947 † ^edits 02:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, I don't see either as primary topic. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:49, 17 May 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 Redirect to the locations these terms refer to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Luandense → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Benguelense → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; briefly listed at Portuguese dialects#List of dialects 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Portuguese dialects#List of dialects because it is a suitable target and they are mentioned there. These are plausible search terms so these should ideally redirect somewhere. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget Luandense → Luanda, and Benguelense → Benguela. See my comment at de section above, about Açoriano - Nabla (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the articles about the cities per User:Nabla. A Google Books search suggests that in English-language sources, the word "Luandense" is typically used to refer to the city. For instance: "the place was as wild and strange to a Luandense as it was to me"; "the magnificent popular Luandense market". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 15 May 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 keep. ✗plicit 07:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Panzer Dragoon (R-Zone) → Panzer Dragoon#Panzer Dragoon (1995)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

All mention of it in the target was removed following a GAN. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2023 (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 03:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No problems with history – the content existed in the target article, but was created by the same editor. Doesn't need to be sent to AfD. J947 † ^edits 02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I'm not sure why this should be deleted however; it's just an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. A mention is hardly required as the reader is not looking for information on the qualifier. Alternatively, retarget to R-Zone#Games. J947 † ^edits 02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Harmless case of an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and it takes readers exactly where it should. Absolutely no need for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. The current target is better than the suggested R-Zone#Games which doesn't provide additional information on the subject as an R-zone game. Jay 💬 16:55, 22 May 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 retarget to the locations identified by each term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Açoriano → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Acoriano → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Algarvio → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Transmontano → Portuguese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These are currently redlinks in {{Portuguese dialects}} (also used at target). with an appended "dialect". I believe either these should be deleted, or the respective "dialect" versions created. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – they are not red links, they are interlanguage links, consisting of an appropriate red link for the missing English article, coupled with a blue link to an existing article on Portuguese Wikipedia, where an interested reader with some Portuguese skills could find the information they are looking for. In addition, each of the red links has several dozen in-links in article space, indicating the relative usefulness of the topic. Should the respective "dialect" versions be created? Sure, and I hope they will be, but their current absence isn't relevant to deciding a deletion question, imho, other than the fact that removing the interlanguage links from the nav template may tend to reduce the odds of that happening. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget "Açoriano" means relative to Azores, which is broader than the language or dialect, just as, e.g, scotish is relative to Scotland, not Scottish English language. Likewise for the other words. So retarget: Açoriano and Acoriano → Azores; Algarvio → Algarve; and Transmontano → Trás-os-Montes. (I'm Portuguese) Nabla (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, to 1234qwer1234qwer4 and whoever reads this. The articles linked (red links, piped and with interlanguage links) are to Açorian language (and so on) not to Açorian (and so on) which are nominated here. - Nabla (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is actually what I meant with my nomination statement. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the articles about the places per User:Nabla. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:21, 15 May 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 retarget to Parliamentary procedure. Early consensus looked to be disambiguation, but no draft was ever presented after several relists, and all of the last few users advocated this retarget (I don't see a consensus to delete). So this should be interpreted also as "no consensus against disambiguation". (non-admin closure) A7V2 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rules of the Senate → Standing Rules of the United States Senate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Just bringing this up here for discussion: does this term unambiguously refer to the rules of the U.S. Senate? J947 † ^edits 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides the target there are, at least, Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XIX, United States Senate Committee on Rules, and Philippine Senate Committee on Rules, found in a few pages of search results, as well as numerous articles which contain the phrase "Rules of the Senate" with that exact capitalization. There's also Parliamentary procedure (the target of Robert's Rules of Order), with a general overview of the concept but not discussing Senates specificaly. I think search results are better here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, that's Rules of order, not Robert's Rules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there are so many rules systems in various senates, and since I fail to see how the U.S.' is the primary topic, I would suggest disambiguation. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. The fact that we have several articles on this, none of which are clearly WP:PTOPIC, means that a dab might be warranted for navigational purposes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is disambiguation warranted? And how will the dab page look like, given the fact that there are several articles on this topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as multiple topics it could refer to. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate seems logical Dronebogus (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a viable draft dab page is presented. Given everything Ivanvector found, I don't see how a dab page wouldn't be overwhelming. WP:REDYES maybe also applies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - Seems like a logical outcome given that this is ambiguous. Deletion would not be helpful because there are so many things they can refer to. In contrast with the comments above, I don't see why a dab page would not be useful. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As nom, disambiguate. Such a dab page seems a bit eh, but it's growing on me. Anyone up for a draft? J947 † ^edits 04:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to disambiguate, but nobody has drafted a viable disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Senate rules redirects there as well. If it's to be disambiguated for multiple government institutions, that one should be redirected as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Compassionate as ambiguous. And in the absence of a dab page, we can't have the status quo. There are no incoming links, so it won't be a redlink, but once deleted, those desirous of creating a dab/set index can do so. We already have the unambiguous redirect Rules of the United States Senate. Jay 💬 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck off in favour of Rosguill. Jay 💬 07:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Parliamentary procedure, which discusses the more general topic of rules in Senates and similar bodies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Parliamentary procedure talks only in the context of United States with reference to Senate. Jay 💬 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly it needs improvement, but the article's title's scope is a perfect fit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Parliamentary procedure as the general article for this concept. Also, if the goal is to list examples of Senate rules in various jurisdictions, that would be better suited as a list, not a disambiguation (unless the scope is specifically those that are named "Rules of the Senate", but that seems a bit narrow). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Parliamentary procedure per above. While we're here I'd put in a good word for Parliamentary procedure#Legislatures as a more specific target (and a good home for any future List of Parliamentary Ruleses), but no need to drag this discussion out any further on that point. -- Visviva (talk) 18:26, 19 June 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. The decision to remove information about these people at the target has been challenged, and should be discussed further at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants before deletion is considered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Fisher (Jeopardy! contestant) → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jonathan Fisher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• MacKenzie Jones → List of Jeopardy! contestants#MacKenzie Jones  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Jennifer Quail → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jennifer Quail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ryan Holznagel → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Ryan Holznagel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Pam Mueller → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Pam Mueller  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Jason Zuffranieri → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jason Zuffranieri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Cindy Stowell → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Cindy Stowell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tom Cubbage → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Tom Cubbage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Eric Newhouse → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Eric Newhouse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Bob Verini → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Bob Verini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Jerry Frankel (Jeopardy!) → List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jerry Frankel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per WP:RDELETE#D8. These sections were removed from List of Jeopardy! contestants a while back due to them being deemed not notable, see this discussion. As a result, they are no longer discussed in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Cindy Stowell to 2016 in American television#December. Pam Mueller and Jason Zuffranieri are still mentioned at the target. Tom Cubbage and Eric Newhouse are too, but can be seen as ambiguous. Jay 💬 14:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: I'm okay with retargeting Stowell, but for the rest, just because they are still mentioned (in passing) on the article doesn't mean the redirects are useful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. I only mentioned them because the nomination said they are not discussed at the target. Jay 💬 07:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late retarget suggestion…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as only remaining open RfD on April 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only ones that are mentioned in episodes; they don't need to have a section or list entry. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and readd the removed sections to the article. I'm not seeing a consensus for removal in the linked discussion, rather an exchange between Randy Kryn and Valjean in which I personally agree with Randy. The removed sections are well sourced and demonstrate through the sources why these candidates are noteworthy, even if they may not have fleshed out Wikipedia articles (yet). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well sourced and notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:05, 28 May 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 article. If deletion is still desired, please nominate it at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Iravaakaalam → S. J. Suryah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Draftify – move this "film" article to draft space and undo the redirect to the article of an actor (where there is only a 6-year old reference to the film). Draftifying will allow the article to be developed in anticipation of future release of the film (if it ever is released). Also salt the article in main space to prevent its re-creation until it passes through AfC.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the article from the page history. A 2017 article that the article cited stated that shooting for the movie was in progress, and a 2022 article (I found it via Google News search, which yields a ton of other coverage too) stated that shooting ended in 2018, with editing and music also done. If I understand correctly, this should be enough to meet WP:NFF (which states Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines). Duckmather (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would restore it to Draft, where it can be improved to incorporate any evidence that would verify that the production of the film itself is notable.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nom on undoing the redirect. Having this target the article of the lead actor where the film is mentioned along with the director and actresses, is not suitable. Restore per Duckmather. If it is taken to AfD, notability can be debated there, and draftification may be requested there as well. Jay 💬 20:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the most natural target, the article about the director: Ashwin Saravanan, which has two sentences about this film. Given that there doesn't appear to be clarity on when the film will be released, then you wouldn't expect an article would exist (WP:NFF: films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines). If anyone would like to recreate the article and work on it, they can dig it up from the page history. I don't think draftification is a good idea, because 1) no-one has volunteered to work on it, and 2) drafts expire 6 months after their last edit, which seems shorter than the time frame of the film's eventual release. – Uanfala (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Duckmather, without prejudice to AfD (which may generate a consensus to draftify). Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the article and send to AfD if desired. A7V2 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 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. ✗plicit 08:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drill Instructor Creed → Drill instructor#Drill Instructor's Creed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page redirects to Drill instructor, where the Creed is not mentioned. GoingBatty (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a suitable target can be found. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading until a suitable target is found.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 23:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think attribution following this AfD which resulted in redirect (or merge) is necessary, as this edit does not seem to merge content from the article at this redirect's title. Info at target article was removed by here by Oknazevad. Mentioned at United States Marine Corps Recruit Training, but not greatly. Otherwise looks to be uncovered on en.wp. J947 † ^edits 23:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I removed the section because it's just inappropriate boosterism for a general interest encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to act as a guidebook, nor to republish mission statements; while the essay at WP:MISSION is about corporate mission statements, the underlying principal applies here as well. Without the inappropriate material, the redirect is also unneeded. So delete it. oknazevad (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, want to note that the AFD mentioned above resulted in delete, not merge. Turning it into a redirect was against the consensus close of the AFD, and should not have been done. In other words, this should have been deleted 16 years ago. oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Classic 2007 Wikipedia, a non-admin closing an AfD as delete and not doing anything about it. J947 † ^edits 01:50, 16 May 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).