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. Added a hatnote to Sports governing body. Jay 💬 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• National Sports Administration → General Administration of Sport of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is likely too general to be correctly associated with the target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add a hatnote "national sports administration" is a generic term, but "National Sports Administration" as a proper noun does appear to be unique to China, so per WP:DIFFCAPS the present target would appear to be correct but a hatnote should be added to wherever national sports administration would target if it weren't red (it's not immediately obvious to me where that is). Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agree. The hatnote target would be Sports governing body#National governing bodies I think. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 13 October 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 23:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bot policy → Wikipedia:Bot policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Bot policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – it's a newly-created WP:XNR without particular affinity to Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing about policy regarding killbots in warfare, etc; WP:XNR excessive navelgazing -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Does anyone think robots.txt would be a good target for this? Fieari (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too specific. Perhaps Robot#Robots in society or Artificial intelligence#Regulation? —Cryptic 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At this point, WP:TNT is probably more helpful than determining a retargeting option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 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 23:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image use → Wikipedia:Image use policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe salvageable with a retarget to illustration? —Cryptic 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Cryptic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a newly-created WP:XNR without particular affinity to Wikipedia. I'd also accept retargeting, but I don't think illustration is a great target – not all "uses of images" are to illustrate a concept or process. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing; not the fair use article, not the article about the politics of imagery, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Illustration, or Delete as my 2nd choice. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague, given the phrase has a connection to image copyrights, making Illustration a potentially misleading target. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My test for retargeting is usually whether a hatnote at the new target would be feasible. In this case, Illustration is too far removed from Image use to make a good redirect target. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 17 October 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 Wikipedia#Content policies and guidelines. There seems to be enough consensus for retargeting, as most of the delete voters were against an XNR, which retargeting fixes and had opined before a mainspace target was identified. Legoktm (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No original research → Wikipedia:No original research  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No original research" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not keep as both an unhelpful WP:XNR due to the Wikipedia meta-ness of the phrase. and since there's no appropriate page in the article space to retarget this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update per Jlwoodwa's comment. I'm neutral on their findings, but want to make it clear I'm no longer hard "delete" on this regardless of the result. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia § Content policies and guidelines, with a self-ref hatnote to WP:NOR. Unlike the other redirects nominated today, this phrase is almost completely unique to Wikipedia. Someone who searches for this is overwhelmingly likely to have WP:NOR in mind, and it's a term that people could encounter before they learn about namespaces. (I would !vote for keeping if not for the brief mention in mainspace, which is a better target per the consensus against new WP:XNRs. If someone removes the sentence It must not present original research. from the target section – which seems mildly possible, since currently it's only sourced to Wikipedia itself – the redirect should target WP:NOR again.) jlwoodwa (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget given unlike legal threats this is likely at least more so a Wikipedia specific term but has mainspace content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. Not about real world use outside in the real world beyond Wikipedia. Not about R&D dollars vs basic research dollars in funding policy, etc. ie. funding for watch crabs walk, etc. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Jlwoodwa. Unambiguous and a likely search term, including for those who haven't learned about namespaces yet (it's a common reason why first attempts at articles are deleted/draftified), but given the mainspace content exists we should target there with a hatnote to the project space page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and Hatnote per jlwoodwa above, who makes an excelent case for it. This is a wikipedia unique term of art, if they are searching for it they want to know about it in the context of wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 01:09, 15 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion policy → Wikipedia:Deletion policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would think to search for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" New users are often quickly thrown into the fray of our deletion process, so ths is a plausible thing for someone to search for when the article they created has just been CSD'd/PRODded/AfD'd. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Deletion policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If this were retargeted to the analgous deletion of articles on Wikipedia then it would be obvious that it is being ridiculously presumptuous. Delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia as probably the most plausable topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – I'd agree with Tamzin, but Einstein v. 357 LLC § Findings on Evidence and Internet censorship in Germany § Access Impediment Act show that the term sees some use outside Wikipedia. There's also Data retention § Policies, which isn't called a deletion policy, but it's certainly a policy on deletion. I'd accept retargeting some mainspace article with a self-ref hatnote to WP:DP, but I haven't found a good target so far. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect, with a deletion log entry including a link to WP:Deletion policy to help Wikipedians and intending Wikipedians. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This gets much use in the controversies on social networks with their content policies and arbitrary deletions. Clearly a WP:REDYES -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Crouch, Swale. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone searching for "Deletion policy" on Wikipedia is looking for Wikipedia's policy on deletion - for example someone whose article has just been deleted or a reader who thinks some other article should be deleted, so it is important that this is easy to find. However given that relevant mainspace content exists we should target that, those who are looking for the policy can follow the link at the top of the page. Those looking for other deletion policies will not find anything on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I imagine the vast majority of readers searching Wikipedia are using an external search engine. I don't think it's fair to assume that they're looking for an English Wikipedia-specific policy. Lots of user-generated content sites have policies on deleting content. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the concept of deletion is not exclusive to Wikipedia. (I oppose "retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia".) Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943. All sorts of things have deletion policies; since we don't have a broad-topic article on them, this redirect should be deleted. Cremastra (u — c) 19:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943. Having this cross the namespace makes it less useful to external search engines and external reuse of Wikipedia. I understand the concern about helping new users. However, if we are concerned about confusing them, then crossing the namespace is also going to confuse them about Wikipedia process.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:42, 28 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No legal threats → Wikipedia:No legal threats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term for a new user. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No legal threats" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe retarget to Legal threat but otherwise delete as not a Wikipedia specific term though having "No" makes it more so its obvious unlike original research that people or websites etc don't want legal threats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This is all over the place in the world at large, and in written contracts, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia-meta phrase with no adequate article namespace equivalent. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, the below "retarget" votes have not convinced my to change my stance from "delete", basically per Utopes. Steel1943 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Legal threat which contains a hatnote to the Wikipedia policy, and thus covers everything that anyone using this search term is likely to be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs)
• Delete. "No legal threats" is not a likely search term for someone looking up "legal threats". Any Wikipedia desires become irrelevant and navel gazing at that point, and the appropriate page can be found in Wikipedia space. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:57, 18 October 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 Day. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 19:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Days → Days (The Kinks song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Used to redirect to Day, but was retargeted by DeCausa in July 2024. Some of the links to this redirect seem to be intended for Day, and some are intended for the song. I'm starting a discussion at RfD because I expect retargeting to be the outcome, but if Days (The Kinks song) is the primary topic for "Days", then it should be moved to this title per WP:MISPLACED. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget: Day is obviously the primary topic. C F A 💬 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. The edit summary "Much more likely target" leaves me only to think that perhaps DeCausa got mixed up about what page they were on or what page they were retargeting to. I note that Days (song) remains a redir to the DAB page (likely correctly, per WP:PDAB). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget back to Day per nom, CFA, and Tamzin as a {{R from plural}} like it was when it was originally created. Even if the song "Days" by the Kinks may be what first comes to certain people's minds, I don't think it overshadows the singular as the primary topic. It's also worth considering fixing links intended for the song, since we don't want to WP:ASTONISH people looking for the article about days. Regards, SONIC678 01:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, IME the best way to do that is to temporarily retarget to the DAB page after closing, then fix all the newly-created inbound dablinks, then implement the actual retarget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Day per WP:PLURALPT "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular", which I see no reason to iognore here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the generic meaning per WP:PLURALPT and WP:ASTONISH especially given the long-term significance and also has higher views[[1]] on most days. The DAB would also be possible but the generic meaning is probably primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Day (disambiguation) as a plural form with multiple notable alternative topics, such as Days of Our Lives. Also, do not keep as the current target is obviously erroneous as a primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Day. I don't see a compelling need to retarget to the disambiguation page, as other uses are already covered by a hatnote. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tbh, I can't even remember doing this (and it wasn't even that long ago!) or what my thinking was. No objection to retargetting though. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 20 October 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 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2032 Copa América → Copa América  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:TOOSOON. The hosts for even the 2028 games aren't decided. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no mention of 2032 at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:10, 14 October 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 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile → Dietary biology of the Nile crocodile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect began its history as an article about the subject, which was then redirected to the correctly titled (and almost exactly duplicate) article that was created less than 6½ days later. It's also gotten nine pageviews in the last year compared to the target's 9,710, which further muddies its plausibility, so I thought I'd send it to RfD to discuss this matter. I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 06:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dumb. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible typo. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:27, 17 October 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 14:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate → Joining of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is a leftover from a move back in February 2020 to the correct title, which I'm not sure is plausible to be kept lying around, especially since it hasn't been used much (it's gotten 118 views during its lifetime, which is pretty small since that equates to less than 1 view per 15 days). Delete unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 06:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a {{R from move}} and a plausible search term. That it's a less used search term than the target is not relevant to anything. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to an implausible typo as it has "the of" instead of "of the." Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create the correct Joining of the Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error with "the of". It was there for ~12 hours before being moved. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G6, totally contrary to any reason to keep an "R from move", which the template text states is to "avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." After 12 hours in 2020, would have a comfortable 0 links. Alternatively, move this page (without leaving a redirect) to the name suggested by Shhhnotsoloud, as this discussion could have been avoided entirely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:52, 18 October 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 14:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• JD "the Couch" Vance → JD Vance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• JD "the couch" Vance → JD Vance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of JD Vance couch controversy this is an unambiguous nickname that is in use and is explained at the proposed target (but not in his main article) which is exactly what someone who wants to learn why he has this nickname is looking for. This is only going to get more likely as time passes as fewer people will be familiar with the meme or its origin. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nickname has insufficient due weight to continue existing, I honestly don't see how the coverage in Hillbilly Elegy explains this nickname (other than it's completely made up). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All nicknames are made up. The existence of this one though can be trivially verified as existing in multiple independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonexistent nickname. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/harris-walz-first-rally-takeaways

This article likens him as "the couch", so idk about the nickname being nonexistent YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Thryduulf. The proposed new target explains where the nickname came from, and why. Removing the redirect at this juncture because "it'll be irrelevant after this election cycle" is running into WP:CRYSTAL issues-- we're not yet after this election cycle, are we? When and if it truly becomes irrelevant, is when we should remove the redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I mean, Dwayne Johnson is The Rock, but is JD Vance The Couch? Not even the disambiguation page, The Couch, mentions that it's a notable or widely used nickname for JD Vance.[2] (There was this piece of funny vandalism [3], which has now been removed, but "The Couch" isn't referring to Vance himself.) Some1 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think JD "the couch" Vance (the uncapitalized form) should be added to this RfD. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Some1 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-used nickname. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only source cited refers to him as “the couch”, not “JD "the couch" Vance”. If there’s actual usage of this in RS then retarget per Thrydulff. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:36, 15 October 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 14:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Couch sex → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The first thing I think of is not JD Vance or Hillbilly Elegy. I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4#Couch sex. That redirect had a different target though so this is not eligible for G4 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very ambiguous term. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete its a common thing -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a common term to refer to something other than the target of the redirect. We do not have an article about the common thing this refers to. As we lack the content the searcher is most likely looking for, delete. Fieari (talk) 01:12, 15 October 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 14:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Having sex with couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Having sex with a couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Sex with couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Sex with a couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_4#Couch_sex also the first thing I think of when I read this title was not JD Vance or Hillbilly Elegy. I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the spirit of the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4#Couch sex. This would make a good redirect to a general article about having sex with furniture (or a similar article) but we don't have one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- this one seems actually pretty plausible as a redirect. I can't think of anyone else associated with the concept of sexing up that specific type of furniture. Also, let's not crystal-ball what will and won't be relevant after November 7. There's no rush, after all. maybe if Trump wins, Vance's critics will continue to use the hoax as a pejorative against him? No telling from when I am, in October 2024. BarntToust^(Talk) 20:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have JD Vance couch hoax. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 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 14:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• K'gari (local council), Queensland → K'gari, Queensland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I would like to delete this redirect. It was originally created by someone who must have wrongly thought that it was a local council, when it is an island. As per WP:RFD#DELETE, I think it meets the criteria of causing confusion as it may lead anyone stumbling on it to think there is or was a council of that name. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Technically I created this redirect when I reversed an erroneous pagemove which was attempting to rename the locality to "K'gari" while disambiguating it from the article about the island (although the ", Queensland" already did this), but assumed the locality was a "local council". As such, I agree it is an unlikely redirect and therefore unnecessary. --Canley (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no local council known as "K'gari" as far as I'm aware. Steelkamp (talk) 06:33, 13 October 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 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly → Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly#List of speakers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm not sure this redirect is plausible with the repeated "of the" in the title—the correctly formatted List of speakers of the Wisconsin State Assembly was created last month—and plus nothing really links to it, so I thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that the repeated "of the" is implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree as well with the implausibility. BarntToust^(Talk) 20:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the correct version exists at List of speakers of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 13 October 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The edit history shows this was unambiguously created in error, and was fixed by the original author 5 minutes later. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union → American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A couple of weeks before Wikipedia was about to enter its sixth year, Pvosta moved the target to the correct title because of the repeated "American" here. It also hasn't gotten very many pageviews nowadays, so I'm not sure if it's worth keeping. I thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss this matter, so I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 02:34, 12 October 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).