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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Morgan & Claypool → IOP Publishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nomination on behalf of Phoebe, who blanked the page with the edit summary, take out redirect, this is incorrect. M&C was an independent publisher that went out of business in 2022. Some of their titles (the Synthesis content) went to SpringerNature. They copublished with IOP on some titles, but not all of them Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Atypon. Considering they are under Ig Publishing I am genuinely confused as to why it was under IOP publishing in the first place. Would @Phoebe agree? The issue is that it isn't mentioned oce there but it seems Morgan and claypool are from Ig Publishing. Edit: Their website was actually partnered with Atypon as seen here, so maybe Atypon is a better redirect than Ig publishing.

This0k (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The articles mentioned by sock are also not suitable targets. Jay 💬 07:01, 20 December 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 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cash Bartlett → Jordan Roberts (writer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambigious, no reliable sources with such name NotAGenious (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 20:36, 16 December 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fountin pen → Fountain pen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible typo. This redirect has received less than 20 pageviews throughout its entire existence. Also, fountin does not exist as a redirect to fountain. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, phonetic misspelling; "fountain" is pronounced fowntĭn (faʊntɪn) to rhyme with tin, so this is very plausible for an ESL speaker. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep it is plausible in that it is a single character omission. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cremastra. Even for native speakers, they might think fountin is some sort of brand name; plausible mondegreen. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plausible misspelling per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 18 December 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 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clone character → Fighting game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not even exclusive to fighting games, and i doubt clone would be a good target cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clones are a feature of a upcoming movie Mickey 17 and famous historical ones like Logan's Run; Star Wars: Clone Wars features a lot of clone characters. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Create an article. We have a Category:Clone characters in video games, and there is real-world coverage, e.g., The Gamer, "10 Best Clones In Video Games" (February 15, 2023). It is a fairly common practice for game designers, cartoon animators, and toy makers to paste new features on an existing character to make an ostensibly new one. BD2412 T 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDYES and BD2412 --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 19 December 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 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The: Mahabharata → Mahabharata  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The: Mahabharatha → Mahabharata  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Haven't been able to find anywhere where a colon is used after the "the". mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as WP:UNNATURAL, unless someone can find a source that does this. Fieari (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The: Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 18 December 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. Affinity. (non-admin closure) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 学研プラス → Gakken  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-Latin characters should not be used as article titles on Wikipedia languages with Latin alphabet, including the English one, even as redirect. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clariniie Please read WP:FORRED. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per forred, redirects from other languages (regardless of what their funny scribbles look like) are fine... but only if the target has any strong affinity with said language. as an example of the type of redirect that should be deleted, meowth has a different name in portuguese (miau... which is literally just "meow"), but that doesn't mean an article on something from a japanese franchise should have this redirect. there's also the issue of brazil not being real, i guess

yes, by the way, this means keep cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait nvm, that's "gakken plus", which isn't mentioned in the article (outside of a site that happens to be tucked in the references). delete as unmentioned cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Japanese Wikipedia page has the mention we need, which seems inclusion-worthy. The sources just need to be sorted out. Here's the first mention of Gakken Plus: 2022年、学研教育みらいを存続会社として学研プラス（旧学研マーケティング、学研教育出版、学研パブリッシング）、学研メディカル秀潤社、学研出版サービスを合併し総合出版社の株式会社Gakkenが発足。 (Google Translate: In 2022, Gakken Plus (formerly Gakken Marketing, Gakken Educational Publishing, Gakken Publishing), Gakken Medical Shujunsha, and Gakken Publishing Services merged with Gakken Educational Mirai as the surviving company to form the comprehensive publisher Gakken Inc.) My !vote for keep is based partially on the spirit (not the letter, I know) of WP:NEXIST, and also because it seems with this merger that Gakken Plus and Gakken are now basically synonymous, which should get rid of any WP:ASTONISH problems until such time as the information and sources from the Japanese wiki can be included here. Fieari (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:FORRED allows foreign redirects as long as the subject has a strong affinity to the language in question, which seems to be the case here. It's a Japanese redirect to a Japanese company, so it makes as much sense as 日本国 redirecting to Japan does User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:07, 18 December 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. charlotte ^👸🎄 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Poe → Edgar Allan Poe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

When searching for PoE without the proper capitalization (which I think is reasonable), you end up on the page Edgar Allan Poe Wiktorpyk (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak move or not-as-weak retarget to poe (disambiguation). there's at least 3 other things someone could be looking for. maybe even more!! cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the disambiguation. I would also probably have done the exact same search as Wiktorpyk and the dab is well-stocked with other things.  — Hex • talk 14:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edgar Allen Poe is the clear primary topic for Poe, and a hatnote exists on the article to direct users to other pages if needed. Also, if you search PoE with the capitalization, you go to the right article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate replace with the disambiguation page Poe (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS – looking at the massviews and the WikiNav for Poe (disambiguation), I think Edgar Allen Poe is the clear primary topic by "topic sought" for the specific capitalization "Poe". Note to closer: If consensus is instead to disambiguate, please implement this by moving instead of retargeting, per WP:MALPLACED. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per jlwoodwa. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By far the best known subject by this name.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The difference in attention and coverage leaves me persuaded Edgar Allan Poe remains the primary topic for this name for the purposes of Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move DAB yes Edgar Allan Poe may get the most views but this is about the single word which would mean topics like the singer might be more likely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per QuicoleJR, jlwoodwa, Cremastra, ★Trekker and Hydrangeans. Edgar Allan Poe is indeed the primary topic for Poe. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's have a look at some typical WP:DPT indicators:

• All-time monthly views of Poe and Poe (disambiguation) - it looks like the patterns seem to match. The search engines are probably sending a lot of their just "poe" traffic to the disambiguation page.
• Same views but with primary topic destination - you have to click logarithmic view - there's some similarity in patterns with the presumed primary topic. There's a clear pattern of yearly spikes in the autumn for the poet. Generally, the level of traffic for just "Poe" has been dropping, while the level of traffic for the poet has been rising, which is a tad confusing.
• meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive says that in the last six months of data (June through November) there were 263, 244, 320, 303, 781, 390 identifiable clicks on the hatnote. It's interesting how this also ebbs and flows together the general rise in interest in the poet in the autumn. Because of a generally high volume of traffic at the destination, we might be seeing some people click the hatnote because of its prominence and curiosity.
• WikiNav for the disambiguation page shows the poet as just the fifth topic, with only 23 identified clickstreams over a total incoming traffic of 966, a volume far behind the top three. Obviously this incoming traffic will be slanted towards the ambiguous meanings, but we can't know for sure how much. I don't know how you'd use that to confirm that people mainly mean the poet when looking up just "Poe", it's a very bad metric.
• The mass views would be much more convincing, but they aren't that convincing either, because the recent video game actually allows the other topics to overtake the balance of views recently. All-time mass views for all topics show a somewhat better view, but it's still obviously flawed, because we haven't had a topical redirect in place for the Altered Carbon character so it's hard to estimate exactly how much of that traffic went there, how much to subtract.

In general I'd say this is a mixed result on usage. Because we're in three-letter territory and we know of at least one reasonably popular acronym that isn't a novelty fleeting entertainment topic, this complicates matters further.

If we want to do something actually useful here, we shouldn't rely on editor polling to make a decision that would tend to be opinion-based. Instead, we should do an experiment with putting the disambiguation page in place for a test period of a few months (at least two or three to make sure we have a sample that has settled down), format a common section at the top and then measure what happens with readers. If most people choose to read about the poet from there, it's easy enough to decide to revert to a primary redirect. --Joy (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it's likely that Edgar Allan Poe is the primary topic for "Poe". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Poe referring to the poet seems approximately as much a WP:PTOPIC as Einstein referring to the physicist. Some names are just that famous. I see no need to test the DAB for a few months first. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 18 December 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 14:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Laws of Time Are Mine → The Waters of Mars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. This was originally categorised as a meme, but the meme-related categories were removed as unjustified. The redirect is a quotation from a TV episode, which is noted at the fan wiki https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Waters_of_Mars_(TV_story) but not mentioned in the target Wikipedia article. Redirect's creator was blocked as a sock, and most of their other creations have been deleted. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete brief mentions in sources but nothing really worth adding to the article. Doesn't appear to be too significant overall. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 13 December 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 14:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Inflatable Squirrel Carcass → WFMU  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should be deleted as it is not mentioned in target and is orphaned. Previously an article for a talk show that was redirected due to lack of notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as non-notable show. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they're not aware of the talk show, which I was prior to literally just now, then this would be a semi-ASTONISHING target to go to (the only thing potentially softening the blow is the capitalization but even then) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:09, 18 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Positive and negative test cases → Software testing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Doesn't seem specific to software testing, and the term is not described there. A better target may be test case, but it still might be a bit WP:XYish. Negative test is a disambiguation page; positive test redirects to Medical test#Positive or negative. Not sure what's best here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Note this redirect is the result of a single line stub that was immediately redirected. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The addition of the word 'cases' makes this an XY at best. With how ambiguous this redirect is it's best to just get rid of it. I am neutral to moving its history somewhere else. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through False positives and false negatives, which discusses tests that can be falsely negative or falsely positive, they would be a form of Binary classification in general. I was thinking in a DAB, but these concepts are very similar to each other, except for the software tests, which also adds Stress testing (software), linked in the negative test dab. LIrala (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Positive and negative predictive values. LIrala (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No pages currently link to the redirect, which has had 4 page views in the 90 days before the RFD opened. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear target and little enough page views so that it wouldn't be a big issue to delete it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, Mdewman6, Mwwv, and Significa liberdade: WP:HEY: I just created Positive and negative (disambiguation). It could look a bit like a WP:COATRACK though I guess in some way that's how a dab works, but anything that isn't ambiguous can be removed from there. Note that Positive or negative test redirect exists. LIrala (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the dab, seems solid, but in terms of this redirect, it seems like something that should be listed their if a primary meaning can be identified, and not retargeted there as ambiguous. I would be okay with targeting test case which mentions both positive test case and negative test case (though the individual terms are not redirects). Otherwise, this should just be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lymbriciform → Worm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

won't argue that it's not a plausible spelling of lumbriciform, but shouldn't it be retargeted to lumbricidae? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should note while i'm at it that i'll create lumbriciform after this discussion is closed and if it's not closed as delete (for any reason not related to its plausibility as a tpyo) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lumbriciform" is a descriptor for a general shape (which is, well, worm-shaped) rather than a scientific classification, so targeting it to "worm" makes more sense here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ChaoticEnby. I don't see how Lumbricidae is any better: redirecting a generic descriptor to a specific family is astonishing. Perhaps the nom was thinking of lumbricid, which would be the individual form (as in, "I saw a lumbricid the other day, lumb'ring by besides the bay."). Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see how it's plausible to maintain a misspelling redirect for an obscure word when we don't even have a redirect for the correct spelling. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @cogsan: We have a Catch-22. You won't create lumbriciform unless Lymbriciform is not deleted as a misspelling, and Tavix would like it deleted as a misspelling because lumbriciform has not been created. Jay 💬 08:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  lmao whomst is this cogsan

  created, should probably nominate it after this closes consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 10:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  oh right, i think i should have pinged @Tavix and @Jay. better a whole christmas late than never, i guess consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 11:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for the vague comment. It was more of "look, no one has ever seen fit to create the redirect with the proper spelling, so the misspelling redirect must be even more obsure!" The new redirect does have the classic "no mention" issue, but I presume that would be an easy fix by editing the target? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  seems like it, though how a mention could be crammed in is not something i can help too much with. same goes for adding something to lumbricidae consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 18:33, 26 December 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. charlotte ^👸🎄 03:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Spore game space phase → Spore (2008 video game)#Space Stage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For a redirect created all the way back in 2009, the title I can't agree with; Shouldn't it be "Spore space stage?" Also the category assigned to this redirect makes absolutely no sense, I played this game and didn't have online multiplayer. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – old redirect, not an egregiously implausible search term, and with an unambiguous target. If you want to create Spore space stage, you can do that regardless of whether this redirect exists. I agree that the category should be removed. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as downright clunky. this reads less like something you'd expect on wikipedia and more like a pile of tags in a booru. no opinion on creating spore space stage, or similar redirects for all the other stages cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extremely implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have no clue why thus exists either. This0k (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:42, 18 December 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).