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 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retirement in Florida → Pensioner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Retiring to Florida → Pensioner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Florida is not mentioned in the target article. Frost 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This was apparently created as a redirect in the aftermath of the deletion closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Retiring to florida. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As User:Tamzin notes in that disucssion, retirement to Florida is likely a notable topic in and of itself. I have therefore started Draft:Retirement to Florida, which would serve as an appropriate target for all of these redirects. BD2412 T 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for creating that draft – the amount of encyclopaedic topics popular in everyday discourse that lack articles always amazes me. However, it's not a great target for this redirect, as "Retirement in Florida" is obviously much broader than "Retirement to Florida". Hence, delete. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I merged the discussion for Retiring to Florida into this discussion. They were originally listed separate, but they had the same nominator, the same rationale, and the redirects are similar themselves, so I did not see why they needed separate discussions. (All the comments above this one may specifically be for Retirement in Florida.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete per nom. i guess this would count as returning to red, since the draft is in the works. should note that this was created by a blocked editor as... a symptom of an editing addiction!? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:14, 14 January 2025 (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 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Phat Chips → Grand Theft Auto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Fictional food in the video game. Not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They don't appear to be notable outside of the game's fictional universe and lore, unlike let's say Duff Beer or the Krabby Patty or even the Dodge Viper-based "Bravado Banshee" which was made into a replica as part of a promotional raffle for GTA V back in 2013. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2025 (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 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grounded videos → Grounding (discipline technique)#In popular culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Grounded videos no longer mentioned in the target page; the "in popular culture" section has been removed, so this redirect can be deleted. 1033Forest (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom and as vague, as daddyofive might have more "notability" in that area. or in more accurate terms, ground the redirect for 7278632646472733354647278526482437278843374733678633778263464 years. what do you mean the numbers' origin is 9 years old, didn't it release last week!? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:11, 14 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Surf shop → Surfing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Surf shops → Surfing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surf culture might be a better target if someone determines that a sourced mention there is worthwhile. Hog Farm _Talk 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is mentioned in several articles. Probably has article potential. Jay 💬 11:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glacier remnant → Glacieret  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to mean an actual glacier remnant [1], not just a small glacier. Cremastra (u — c) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of the redirect and the target, I will not !vote, but the article says Glacierets are usually remnants of larger glaciers that existed, so it probably is a better redirect than to the main Glacier article or deletion. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• normally, i'd say delete, usually per wp:returntored, but a weak keep seems more appropriate here, if without prejudice against refining to #characteristics. i don't think glacier has any specific section that would fit it better consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. However retargeting to Amorites as a better target. Jay 💬 12:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Amorrhitis → Syria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think "amorrhitis" is a made up word. The initial page content literally stated Amorrhitis- from the spanish word "Amor" which means love and "rhitis" which means inflamation, threfore the meaning of amorrhitis is love inflamation.. So delete, maybe? Duckmather (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it appears to be a 19th-century name for one of the kingdoms established by the Amorites; see e.g. [2]. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems a better target than Syria. CMD (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:33, 10 January 2025 (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 Exam#Final examination. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Term End Exam → United States Military Academy#Curriculum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; does not seem specific to West Point. Was a 2-line unsourced stub from 2009 that was immediately redirected, would be highly unlikely to survive Afd. Possible retarget possibilities include exam#final exam, but the lowercase term end exam or even term exam don't exist, so deletion is probably best. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to Academic term where the topic of an end of term exam is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's clear why this was created, and it has no current utility. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Exam#Final examination, which is where Final exam points. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Incredibly vague and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Mx. Granger, seems a plausible search term. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Mx. Granger, agree this seems a plausible search term. Unless there's some reason the title case precludes that? -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2025 (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 procedural close. Please use Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cousin Luke → Gene Petit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Speedy so I could pagemove was declined due to "longstanding title"... Nobody knows this pro wrestled by his legal name. He is most famous for his WWE name of Cousin Luke. The MOS says we should use the most common names wherever possible and this is no real exception, much in the same way John Wayne is not found at Marion Morrison, or Triple H is not found at Paul Michael Levesque, and Abdullah the Butcher is not found at Lawrence Robert Shreve. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...so this is a requested move? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue, yeah, just open an RM. Normally you can use RMTR for these sorts of moves, but I honestly don't think this would be uncontroversial given the length of time it's been at the same title. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2025 (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 00:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LOGiN Magazine → Enterbrain#Login  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. As it happens, Login (magazine) is an entirely separate topic. The magazine does get discussed at ASCII (magazine), but the context and link there is different and implies that this is supposed to be elsewhere. There's a good number of incoming links here from various references, presumably, so I figured I'd air it here because it's not very helpful in its current state. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:53, 10 January 2025 (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 Løding. ✗plicit 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Loding → Fenrir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Per the sentence from 2001, "Loding is the first of the three chains that the gods of the Norse Mythology used to chain Fenris." By no means an alternate name, and an entirely different undiscussed topic. Much more plausible as a spelling of loading, especially so if you're loading lodes. Løding might be a better target yet. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to løding per nom in absence of an exact target, with strong absence to loading and lode, as it could then be qualified as a bad pun- i mean, would likely not be a fitting target for either, and wouldn't have enough exact matches for a dab consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:28, 10 January 2025 (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 East Turkestan. asilvering (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Bukaria → Uzbekistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per the edit summary, this is an archaic name for Uzbekistan. However, this information is completely obscured to readers as it is never discussed in the article text. At a previous 2022 RfD, it was aired that a mention could be added with some listed sources, and kept temporarily as a "redirect without mention". However, this category is never a permanent solution, and now in 2025 there still is nothing for the term "Bukaria", nor any type of area being "Little". It seems that this could be discussed in some way, but leaving it be forever does not seem to be possible, as people who look for information about the archaic definition of Uzbekistan's "little Bukaria" will not be able to find it at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not really sure on this one. There are a few hits on Internet Archive for this phrase but most of them are passing references. The most helpful sources I found were these two maps from 1917 and 1749. Interestingly, in both maps, the cities of Yarkand and Turfan are both shown to be in this region. Today, both cities are in Xinjiang. So, perhaps "Little Bukaria" is actually a name for that region? And not Uzbekistan? Although, see also this source which identifies Little Bukaria as a Uzbek region. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to East Turkestan per Kusma. I looked at this article in my initial search but didn't catch the mention of Little Bukhara. Good find! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your 1749 map provided the crucial clue for figuring this out, actually. Great teamwork! —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers to you both for helping get to the bottom of where this place was! This is a big win for substantiating a mention, so thank you! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to East Turkestan, mirroring where fr:Petite Boukharie redirects to. A "Little Bukhara" (reasonable spelling variant of Little Bukaria) is mentioned there. —Kusma (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An alternative could be to try to mention this at Bukhara (disambiguation). —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to East Turkestan per above, which should address the issue of the redirected name not being mentioned in the article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:14, 11 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Larry Pile → Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This person is not discussed at the target page. As such, is a misleading redirect. This was BLAR'd in 2014 to avoid an AfD and had a dedicated section up until a few months ago. As of then, this redirect becomes misleading if people looking for this individual cannot read about them at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a valuable redirect with only passing mentions and no merge accomplished, but given this was redirected unilaterally by a sock it probably deserves an AfD. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added mention. He seems to be quoted a lot in the news when they are brought up and has some claim to something as an author so I think the mention is fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PARAKANYAA. Jay 💬 22:15, 22 January 2025 (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. Consensus the redirect is accurate. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli bombing of lebanon → Israeli–Lebanese conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguious term, does not seem fit to be a redirect here. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The target discusses multiple instances of bombing by Israel in Lebanon. The target is a broad concept article, so I think it is appropriate. Deleting seems unhelpful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect is at the appropriate target, as Israel has bombed Lebanon numerous times. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note by nom: The creator was blocked for redirect related issues. Not exactly sure if it qualifies for WP:G5, so left the csd tagging. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:10, 14 January 2025 (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 14:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• History influencer → Social media influencer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This comes from a prolific editor, so I have no idea if I am misinterpreting this redirect, but influencers that talk about History are not mentioned in the article. However, the history of influencers is, so this redirect may be a typo. Weak Delete for now as possibly misleading, but I would not be surprised if I am reading this wrong, -1ctinus📝🗨 02:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:40, 16 January 2025 (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 00:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Third Syrian Republic → Syria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Technically, it's still the second republic, and acc to a google search, negligible amount of web pages(<10) think otherwise. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is mention backed by scholarly sources. Jay 💬 17:38, 17 January 2025 (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. Refining, plus no rationale provided to do anything else besides keeping. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 20th Century Fox Telecommunications → 20th Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No opinion on this, just listing it for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not tagged for a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A very obscure part of Mr Murdoch's empire, but mentioned on the current target page. Tevildo (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to #Divisions. Jay 💬 17:56, 17 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Metromedia Producers Corporation → Metromedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No opinion on this, just listing it for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not tagged for a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nothing to be done I guess. Jay 💬 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mentioned nowhere at the target, even if so not a significant mention. Intrisit (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A term is either mentioned or not mentioned. In the same sentence you say it is not mentioned, and then say it is not a significant mention. So, what is it, and why do you think it is not a significant mention? Jay 💬 07:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the confusion to keep such redirects like this. By even if so not a significant mention means the creation of that redirect, however cheap, is irrelevant and it has to be deleted. Intrisit (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I find sufficient information at the target, so I'm at a loss to understand how it is irrelevant or not significant. Jay 💬 19:30, 23 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CBS Entertainment Productions → CBS Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No opinion on this, just listing it for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not tagged for a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nothing to be done I guess. Jay 💬 18:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mentioned nowhere at the target, even if so not a significant mention, unlike Hearst Entertainment which I also nominated mid-last year. Intrisit (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A term is either mentioned or not mentioned. In the same sentence you say it is not mentioned, and then say it is not a significant mention. So, what is it, and why do you think it is not a significant mention? The Hearst Entertainment RfD was faulty too (I was the lone participant!) and resulted in being kept. Jay 💬 08:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the confusion to keep such redirects like this; the fact that the "Hearst Entertainment" rdr was created under the tagging of "cheap" without significant mentioning anywhere in the target's "History" section. By even if so not a significant mention means the creation of that redirect, however cheap, is irrelevant and it has to be deleted. Intrisit (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I find sufficient information at the target, so I'm at a loss to understand how it is irrelevant or not significant. Jay 💬 19:31, 23 January 2025 (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. Obviously created in error. —Kusma (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) —Kusma (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2015 LA fires → January 2025 Southern California wildfires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ten years off. I can see it being a slip of the finger, but still pretty implausible. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, would support an R3. Heart ^(talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (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 14:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cissy (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Orange Islands Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Cissy" is not listed at the target article. Also, not listed at List of Pokémon anime characters either. Couldn't find anything else in a search, besides the entry on the Cissy dab page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:22, 2 January 2025 (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 14:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, and remove that entry in the dab for good measure. nothing worth keeping pre blar, as it was just unsourced fancruft. unrelated, but the image used there got replaced, which is... honestly really funny consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:22, 14 January 2025 (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 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• V'Ger (Hewlett-Packard) → HP 49/50 series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I can't see "V'Ger" (or "Voyager"?) mentioned here, and I don't think it ever has been. The only "V'Ger" I can find elsewhere is about Star Trek, or at PowerPC G4. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2025 (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. Nomination has been withdrawn by nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vicissicaudata → Artiopoda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect not needed: it’s in basically the same situation as Xenusia, but with artiopods instead of lobopodians (i.e. a subgroup of the clade being redirected to that is separate enough to have its own page). IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no valid reason for deletion. Vicissicaudata is widely used in the academic literature [3] and usually (though not always) treated as a subgroup of Artiopoda. It's a useful redirect. It could be spun out into its own article but I think keeping it as a redirect is best for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to points raised by Hemiauchenia IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:WINGSUIT → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Wingsuit combat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• WP:WINGSUIT → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Wingsuit combat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Newly created redirect with no mention at target of how "wing suit" is relevant. It doesn't seem inherently obvious. Recommend to delete. An essay would be a better route to explain the analogy, if significant. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Reference to this xkcd :)

A bit unusual, but I swear this is how I remember this—I can never remember what the actual title is for that policy. I think xkcd is popular enough that I won't be the only one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that an essay is the way to go if one desires to give the concept wings, not a redirect without any obvious context. —Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding [[wingsuit]] [[combat]] as another example (along with "chess tournament") be enough to clarify the redirect? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: Some related mention would address my concern. Coincidentally on another thread, someone brought up that the page chess tournament actually exists, so a better example is anyways probably needed. —Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: Regarding your addition to the MOS, is having two examples there now overkill?—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were two examples before - he deleted the most common one, MOS:SOB, which I have now reinstated. As for basing a redirect on an obscure cartoon, I have no idea how it is relevant - please delete. - Arjayay (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: They deleted the SOB shortcut, but did add the "wingsuit" example. Also, you may want to boldface your !vote to make it less likely to get lost. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider XKCD 'obscure', I really don't wanna know what you consider an actually obscure webcomic like East and Python as User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utterly useless for everybody except one, or to be extremely generous, perhaps a handful of users. The "example", "wingsuit combat", is not even an example at all of a "sea of blue" for the many users who, via CSS, display redirects in a different color, and thus see two distinct differently-colored links. Even if the redirect is kept, the shortcut and example should be removed from the Manual of Style page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Wikipedia needs a little humour once in a while and it is quite safe to use this in an example. (... and there is nothing obscure about XKCD!) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's up to WT:MOSLINK whether the MoS should mention "wingsuit combat" and whether this should be listed as a shortcut. The only questions for us are whether it's a plausible shortcut (yes) and whether it's unambiguous (yes). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin. At least one editor finds it useful, and it's not doing any harm. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin. (I suspect that, contra Mandarax, significantly more people will be familiar with the Xkcd reference than use CSS to make redirects appear in a different colour to direct links!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's fun, it's memorable, it's useful, and the content has now been updated to include wingsuit combat example. (I realize this isn't the question at hand, but I think it's worth having both that and the chess tournament examples).--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: now mentioned at target and is a good example of the guideline, so it works. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Guaifenesin/codeine/pseudoephedrine → Cold medicine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems like a rare case of WP:XY happening to 3 different things at the same time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think this is being used to mean "guaifenesin OR codeine OR psuedoephedrine", but is used similarly to Hydrocodone/paracetamol, that is, a preparation that combines guaifenesin, codeine, and pseudoephedrine, which is a real thing. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if Cold medicine is the best target. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is not mentioned at the target, though it possibly could be listed as an example of a combination drug under the Types section. The mix is indirectly mentioned at pseudoephedrine. Neither place is worth targeting as there is/would be no real information about the mix itself. ― Synpath 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that this is not a case of WP:XY. This is a real cold medicine and this styling of the name is an accepted convention for combination drug products (another example of a three-drug combo is carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone). The individual drugs are mentioned in cold medicine. That said, it's not clear that this redirect is used in any articles. This should be deleted unless it can be shown to serve a real purpose.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:04, 12 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamantium (band) → Bane (band)#Extended plays  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There's got to be no way this redirect is useful as a target to a band that has nothing to do with them save for sharing a split single/EP. Ten years ago, someone tried to Speedy G8 this, but it was declined as it was deemed that it was determined to be "useful to Wikipedia". I don't buy that, and I'm asking that more people discuss it.

In theory, this band is notable, as this Orange County hardcore band has shared multiple band members with several different clearly notable bands involved in their scene. But that has not yet been demonstrated. mftp dan ^oops 01:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, return this to red. No band called "adamantium" is discussed at the target, therefore the redirect is misleading. WP:Cheap is an essay, and doesn't address a single thing from the nomination. If the band is notable, a page should be created, but having a misleading redirect to a page where it is not discussed is harmful and misleading to our readers without context. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is mentioned in the Extended Play section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jax, regardless of if it is cheap or not, I fail to see how redirecting an apparently non-notable band to the discography of an otherwise unrelated band, all because they shared one release which itself is not notable, actually helps the searcher. Please pitch me something that makes sense. mftp dan ^oops 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adamantium was a major part of one of the albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not an album, and hardly an EP. I'm not buying that argument. A split EP, barely longer than what you could call a single, with two songs from the contributing band, is not an appropriate target. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find that conclusion. The best target, in theory if he had enough SIGCOV for an article, might be Keith Barney (18V, Throwdown). But Bane is not a helpful target. I'm hopeful that Adamantium can be an article one day, but not in its current form. mftp dan ^oops 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A minor technicality, but Adamantium was a major part of that EP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with both nom and Utopes. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2025 (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. I'm interpreting the "keep per WP:REDLINK" as a delete here. asilvering (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Mario series locations → Super Mario#Settings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target section no longer exists, and no such information is in the target article. However, looks like this title had history as an article for a few months in 2007 before being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. no need to worry about the history, as it had no sources and was written like something in tv tropes, with levels of detail being all over the place consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 14:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: For what it's worth, it does not seem that there is such a list in Mario (franchise) either, though there are some settings sporadically mentioned throughout the article in places which would not seem to validate this redirect being targeted to any of them. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and mention this on the talk page to encourage development of a properly sourced section. Tduk (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...So, keep per WP:REDLINK??? Usually, the lack of content at a title encourages content creation; the title existing could trick a reader into think the subject exists. (A title existing with no content or target is like "cart before the horse".) Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – We have no such list, and we shouldn't. Even if we were to go into detail on the Mushroom Kingdom, the "locations" would just be Peach' castle, Bowser's castles, and "there are themed worlds, typically these." We shouldn't suggest we have a list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:16, 25 January 2025 (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 close. The previous discussion just closed moments ago with consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AOOO → Archive of Our Own  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This abbreviation is approximately never used (the common shortening is AO3). Results seem primarily about the band Aooo, with an assortment of other abbreviations. Nowhere in the first ten pages of google results do I see the archive, though a search for AOOO fanfic does pop up a few people discussing why it isn't abbreviated AOOO. Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. @Rusalkii: I just closed this RfD as keep. Why are you renominating it? CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – I don't know what the minimum time between RfDs is, but I think it should be longer than nine minutes. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep, with preference to reopening on exactly march 10. give it some time, sheesh consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 13:06, 10 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mushroom Kingdom → Mario (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Bringing this up for discussion after discovering that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom Kingdom occurred in April 2024, which established a consensus to redirect this title to Super Mario. I retargeted this redirect to Mario (franchise) As a more plausible target, given that the subject of the redirect is part of the franchise as a whole, not just the video game series. In addition, the franchise article seems to contain more information about the subject of this redirect than the series article. In other words, my vote here is keep, but I'm bringing this up for discussion because it seems like consensus for this is necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Retargets must occur at RFD and not AFD. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. I guess I'll just use this opportunity to express my displeasure at the outcome of the AfD. If I had seen it at the time I would have !voted to keep it. Plenty of sources exist as was demonstrated by Zxcvbnm. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep redirect or restore article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the participants of the AfD: A412, Captain Galaxy, Conyo14, Cukie Gherkin, Daranios, Greenish Pickle!, Jclemens, Koopinator, Liz, MKsLifeInANutshell, Maplestrip, Mir Novov, MoonJet, Pokelego999, Sergecross73, Shooterwalker, Sirfurboy, TompaDompa, Tumbuka Arch, and Zxcvbnm. Jay 💬 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm indifferent to the target, as long as it stays a redirect. No one has been able to establish notability, and there's multiple existing articles that cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Yeah, it's notable, especially when factoring in that one article about Peach's Castle, which exists within the Mushroom Kingdom itself. If that is not done, though, keep because this is the most sensible target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Until someone can provide a solid proof of concept for a revised version of the Mushroom Kingdom article, I say to keep the redirect as is. If such an article can be provided and has ample discussion elsewhere between editors, then I will be more supportive of a restore. CaptainGalaxy 16:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The redirect is better at that article. As for a recreation, this was already discussed by consensus months ago to be non-notable. Per Galaxy, if someone wants to make a proof of concept and such, then that's fine, but recreating an article already deemed non-notable without any idea of how it would look, is not a wise decision, and better off discussed elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore with no prejudice against another effort to redirect. AfD conclusion was wrong, but not egregiously so, nothing is going to break if we give it another chance. People find sources for articles being threatened with redirection, not for redirects. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not clear on the discussion here. I will reiterate that I think a Mario setting or Universe of Mario article would be a good potential article. In the meantime, I accept that the AFD had a consensus to redirect (even as someone who !voted keep), and it's improper for someone trying to ignore that consensus without more discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it's fine to be discussing different redirect target possibilities here, but this isn't the place to try to overturn the AFD consensus, which it feels like some of the above comments are driving at... Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 22 January 2025 (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 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Astro Xpresi → Astro (company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

TV channel owned by the company; not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (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).