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 23:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Ballon d'Or → Ballon d'Or  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Event is two years away. No relevant content in target article. Blethering Scot 20:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Lanka T10 → Lanka T10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of 2025 event in article. Event not for another year, and not yet notable. Blethering Scot 20:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question - The target article is written from a past perspective, from before the event happened. Did it happen? Was it pushed back to 2025 for some reason? I don't know, but if so, then the redirect should stand. I know nothing about the subject of this article, other than that it desperately needs to be updated. Fieari (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fieari: It is to be inaugurated tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Global Super League → Global Super League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of 2025 event in article. Event not for another year, and not yet notable. Blethering Scot 20:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete all except HTH, HAND. Jay 💬 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CTTOI → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• DKDC → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• KTHNX → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• HTH, HAND → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• T,FTFY → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not listed at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete most, put a pin on kthnx, i'll see if i can find something for it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"HTH" and "HAND" are both listed at the target page. it makes sense to keep the redirect for the combined term. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The T,FTFY redirect page was not tagged for RfD. Done now, and this nomination has to be listed for at least 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cogsan: Anything on kthnx? Jay 💬 08:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay oops, i thought i sent it before. i found nothing noteworthy, seeing as results are mostly flooded with unnotable musicians and... an airport? really, i'm surprised i didn't get a lot of results about the actual slang, but then again, most people use "kthx"

  refined searches mostly gave me dictionaries, which i don't think would work for this stuff

  who the h*ck is cogsan consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 11:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Close to a consensus to delete, even though the keep side are greater in number. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Amongst whomst? → Template:Among whom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Whomst → Template:Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:Whomst? → Template:Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Template:By whomst → Template:Who  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete as unused, implausible typo. We might tolerate something like this with regard to mainspace (though I note that whomst is a redlink, and whom's target of Who (pronoun) has no mention of a "whomst"). A template redirect, however, exists for the sole purpose of use in transclusion. The target of this is a cleanup template, and an in-article call to that template, should read sensibly to any editor (or wikisource-curous reader) who encounters it. "Whomst" isn't a word in Modern English, but an obsolete form that was uncommonly used into the Early Modern period. No corresponding Template:Amongst whomst exists, and tacking on "?" doesn't somehow make this useful (otherwise we might as well have Template:Amongst whomst?? and Template:Amongst whomst???). wikt:whomst suggests (without any sources) that "whomst" is sometimes still employed for humorous effect, but WP is not a comedy site and more importantly our maintenance templates and their names don't serve a humor purpose (or an Elizabethan roleplay purpose). PS: Template:Amongst whom is fine, since amongst is still in frequent usage in the language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC); revised 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was summoned here by a missive on mine talk-page; I would be hard-pressed to come up with any aspect of this that is important. Have we nothing more pressing, that this task shouldst be thine? Must we form a delineation of age beyond with none can use words? Surely Latin is older still, thereby whence "videlicet", "et alia" and "{{sic}} erat scriptum"? jp×g🗯️ 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't have anything to do with "pressingness". We should not keep templates that don't serve a practical purpose, as they are a systemic maintenance burden. Has nothing, either, to do with age of the term, but rather with lack of documented currency in Modern English; videlicet/viz., et alia/et al., and sic are (like Greek ergo which is even older) still used daily in the language, albeit largely in academic, legal, or other specialist literature. Whomst is not. We do not need a Template:Thou, Template:Thee, Template:Thy, and Template:Thine to go along with or redirect to Template:You, for the same reason Template:Amongst whomst? is nominated for deletion here. PS: You're kind of defeating your own argument by writing "shouldst be thine", etc. No one is going to take seriously that Elizabethan-era English norms have implications for our template redirect needs. The fact that any well-read native speaker can probably still parse it doesn't mean we need templates that use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create something that you, personally, "take seriously" -- it is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. Is there a reason why writing an encyclopedia necessitates the active removal of template redirects that you dislike? jp×g🗯️ 06:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing to do with what I "like". There are hundreds (at least) of redirects I don't like, but I would not nominate them for deletion because they don't qualify. This one does, since it is potentially confusing and to many will be nonsensical, it is a novel obscurity (though not technically a neologism, in resurrecting a dead word from the past), and it doesn't serve an editorially useful function (does not represent a common typo, or otherwise aid with linking attempts), and is not "a closely related word form" (it is not attested in any major dictionaries). We also do not keep non-English redirects (Russian, French, etc.) unless we have a technical need for them, and this qualifies as another language (Middle to Early Modern English).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep "Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously "use ... as a point-and-laugh vehicle" != "serious use". As noted in the nomination statement, use for humorous effect has been cited already, but is not a keep rationale because of the nature of this site and especially of our cleanup/dispute templates. And use in jokey Internet meme is no connected to use in the sort of language that pertains to writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, so would not be relevant anyway. E.g., we have no use for Template:Source been ghosted or Template:Because facts redirects to Template:Citation needed, nor a Template:Yeet redirect for Template:db. WP isn't written in, or maintained internally by means of, Internet meme slang. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Read:

  ""Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle"

  i.e: People sometimes use whomst seriously, but mostly it's just a humorous term User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We have no reliably sourced evidence of any "amount of serious uses".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not everyone knows what whomst means. Template shortcuts should be understandable to most. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wikt:en:whomst is real and proper English. It is not a shortcut, it is a valid alternate spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not. Proof: Use the OneLook dictionary search aggregator and search for "whomst" there [1]. You find that not one major English-language dictionary (that is online-accessible) includes this word, only Wikitionary does (without any sourcing), and we cannot rely on it even if it did have sourcing, per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR. Contrast that with the OneLook results for "whom" [2], which turns up in every dictionary you've probably ever heard of and many you won't have. But feel free to quote from any 20th-century or later offline dictionary you can find that does include this word but does not indicate obsolete or archaic. I'll wait.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't using archaic language. It isn't using Chaucer's English though, so it is perfectly readable. It is English and not Anglish. It is using "amongst" after all, and that is also archaic. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not use this "Whatever idea I have in my head must be the truth" approach to writing mainspace content. "Amongst" is not archaic at all, but used daily by innumerable English speakers, especially in the UK. This is demonstrable in just a few moments of research (though anyone familiar with more than one dialect of English would already know of its usage). Using the same dictionary search aggregator [3], you find that amongst is not listed as "archaic" or "obsolete" in any of them, though many note that it is "chiefly British" and some also that it is considered more formal/academic/literary. Next, Chaucer is still quite readable; my school had us go through much of The Canterbury Tales in 8th grade, simply with a glossary sheet of entirely obsolete words like siker. So, I'm really not sure what sort of point you're trying to make here, and I return to mine: WP does not need or keep template redirects written in Middle English to Early Modern English obscurities, because they serve no practical purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are disingenuously using "keep" as a verb here, which implies some sort of continued action is necessary for this to continue to exist. This is false. The exact opposite is true -- it requires absolutely no effort from anybody. The thing you are proposing is that we perform a bunch of actions to make it go away. Can you explain the "practical purpose" of this? jp×g🗯️ 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'm fairly sure that this was created as a joke since it was created after whomst was a meme. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not. jp×g🗯️ 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and a trout for the creator). We don't need joke redirects in template space. SMcCandlish, would you be willing to add template:Whomst, template:Whomst?, template:By whomst to the nomination? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a joke jp×g🗯️ 08:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indistinguishable from one, and the main thrust of the nomination is that these serve no encyclopedia-building or -improving purpose, so we have no need of them. This is not CreateTemplateRedirectsForEveryImaginableLinguisticVariationPedia (even if you assert that "this is not CatchUpWithTheJokeyMemesOfTheDayPedia" doesn't apply).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that you are having fun joking around, but I wish you would at least try to take this seriously for a minute.

  Wikipedia is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. It is not a roleplaying website for pretending we work for the government of East Germany.

  Memorable shortcuts for commonly-used templates serve an extremely obvious purpose: they make the process of editing easier and more tolerable.

  This is straightforwardly and directly conducive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. I am fine with jokes and being silly a bit here and there, but I would appreciate if you tried to keep in mind the actual purpose of the project. jp×g🗯️ 06:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean "It is not a roleplaying website for pretending we work for the government of East Germany."? @SMcCandlish wasn't pretending they work for the government for East Germany to my knowledge. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever. 🙄 I'm not going to engage further in this silly projection game, in which JPxG's redirects are perceived as jokey and not serving a serious purpose by most arrivals here, so he uses the school-yard "No I'm not! You are!" tactic of calling the redirect's critics jokey and non-serious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are not interested in a real conversation, that's fine, but please understand that using bureaucracy to police people's use of words you find dumb is deeply frivolous and unserious. The amount of time wasted by a dumb template redirect existing is approximately zero, whereas the amount of time wasted by hauling people out to a dumb RfD nomination is likely multiple hours. jp×g🗯️ 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep as plausible per 65, but minnow the creator anyway because it'd be funny cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But User:65... is proven wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't really claim that via one singular reply made by yourself though. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That response doesn't make any sense. How many "replies" there are, by whom, is irrelevant; the proof is in the reliable sourcing not which or how many persons referred to the reliable sourcing as part of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Harmless, unambiguous target, WP:CHEAP applies despite nominator's unsubstantiated claim that redirects somehow increase maintenence burden. Even if it can be used as a joke, WP:Don't be the Fun Police. This isn't mainspace, we're allowed to be a little less serious behind the scenes sometimes. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's harmful because it can be confusing to editors. CHEAP is never a valid reason to keep a redirect; it's just there to counter any claims about redirects being a burden to system resources, which isn't being claimed here, so this is a straw man. And we're not talking about jokey essays for fun, we're talking about templates that can be transcluded in article space. If you want it so badly, keep it in user space, not template. Do you have any actual substantive reason for keeping this other than "oh no won't somebody please think of the poor redirects?" and "it's just for fun lol why do you have to be such sticks in the mud?" 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We actually do routinely delete jokey redirects; various policy and guideline pages have had many of them and they do not survive. We tolerate them for essays sometimes, when they are referential of content in the essay. But here, the actual templates these redirs resolve to are intended for mainspace use, so we absolutely should be "fun police", because goof-off stuff in mainspace isn't appropriate. If you create a {{crapola}} or {{pants on fire!}} redir to {{failed verification}} you can expect it to get RfD-nuked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it confusing editors, when it is using the word properly. That would have you delete all the ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they definitely have in-Wikipedia jargon as part of their formation. Or any of the templates with short names, instead of sentence long names, as they are too short to elucidate their function. Wouldn't you need to add "footer navbox" to stop confusing editors in that the footer navbox templates are not infoboxes? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Argumentum ad absurdum. No, User:35...'s argument does not amount to deleting our ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they serve an important and unmistakable purpose for the entire editing community and are part of a well-established shortcut system. However, if someone created "WP:FLUG#NFPL33P" and "WP:CHICKENNUGGETS" shortcuts to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we would delete them since they would not be sensible to other editors and would not serve a purpose for anyone but their creator. Same with these templates. There is no evidence that "whomst" survives in Modern English usage except for their and little known and likely short-lived resurrection for an Internet joke meme, which is not pertinent to the templates these redirects go to. If I create a joke meme that uses the Chaucerian-era fynissched, and people pass that meme around on social media, that does not magically mean that WP needs a {{fynissched}} redirect to {{done}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow me to respectfully but vehemently disagree that "whomst" and "amongst" are entirely unheard of in modern English. They are known, used, and understood in Modern English as creating an old-timey old-fashioned historical or overly formal feel that is widely understood and used as such, outside of memes and jokes, even if memes and jokes also use such. If you said these words to any random adult on the street, they would understand both the meaning and the context-flavor. Contrarily, the word fynissched is not widely known, used, or understood, and if you showed it to a given random adult English speaker they would be unlikely to understand it unless they had specialized knowledge (if they heard it spoken they might understand it as a heavily accented "finished", but written? No way). Heck, I personally have used "amongst" unironically as part of normal daily speech without necessarily intending an old timey feel sometimes (intending a more formal, academic, or sinister flavor instead). Fieari (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that whomst and amongst are actual words that people use in their vocabulary - as that meme proved - and even has a Wiktionary page, whereas fynissched is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things that even Wiktionary forgot about it User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JPxG's remarks. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nobody is going to expect a formal encyclopedia to have templates named after archaicisms. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, potentially useful (now that I know they exist, I specifically intend to start using them) and, whom'st'd've thought it, both modern and charming in a way that's sorely lacking around here. Respectfully SMcCandlish, this assessment - little known and likely short-lived resurrection for an Internet joke meme - shows that you've not spent much time around some of the fresher parts of the internet, because whomst has been in common usage for the last eight years or so. Did it start out as a meme? Yes. But language evolves and new words have to come from somewhere.  — Hex • talk 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:APO → Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"MOS" shortcuts should only lead to actual Manual of Style guideline pages and not other project pages and essays. Incoming links should be replaced with WP:APOS. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not commonly used enough to warrant a WP:XNR Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fucket → Phuket province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Fucket, Thailand → Phuket province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fucket Province → Phuket province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fuket → Phuket province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Fucket Island → Phuket province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Unlikely search terms. While it may not be uncommon for ignorant unknowing English speakers to mispronounce the name (it's POO-get, FYI), they would most likely be well aware of the correct spelling, as that's how they're mispronouncing it in the first place. Putting it into writing seems more like an attempt at juvenile humour. Google search also shows that "fucket" is more likely to be a play on "bucket", though I doubt there's an appropriate target for that. Suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last one was apparently created by a blocked LTA sock. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggested per nom. No one refers to Phuket as F*cket. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the nomination's explanation is thorough and spot on. One only would mispronouce the term this way by knowing the spelling, which would result in one being unlikely to misspell it this way. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "While it may not be uncommon for ignorant unknowing English speakers to mispronounce the name" is exactly one of the reasons for making a redirect in the first place User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not convinced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• UCBR8-60-B28hp2BmDPdntcQ → YouTube (YouTube channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a YT channel id, but the reasons for deletion would be the same as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete complete nonsense redirect. Aydoh8^[contribs] 07:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DQw4w9WgXcQ was recently recreated and consensus has changed to "retarget to Rickrolling where it's mentioned" Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus here and here. Every video/channel, notable or not, has an ID. Putting them all as redirects to the YouTube article would be nonsensical and set bad precedent. Definitely am open to exceptions though, such as DQw as previously mentioned. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This YouTube ID does not have the same notoriety, as an ID, that dQw4w9WgXcQ has. As I said in that discussion, most YouTube IDs are not notable, noteworthy, or plausible to be searched for, with VERY rare exceptions. This one does not qualify. I think a good rule of thumb would be whether or not it is WP:DUE to put the ID in the article body as part of a sentence talking about it. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion, and nomination was apparently withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Alan Kimche → Alan Kimche  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

שלאק (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @שלאק Why do you want to delete this redirect? Please note that draftspace to mainspace redirects are allowed per WP:RDRAFT. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 04:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Was unaware. שלאק (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No reason for deletion, no action suggested. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2014 in Illinois → 2014 in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion. Same reasons as in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#1996 in California. Year articles should remain redlinks so we can easily see which ones still need to be created. Target article 2014 in the United States has very little information about Illinois, so not a helpful redirect. HertzDonuts (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, delete per nom so it becomes a redlink. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. When a person is looking at a timeline (which imo is just a glorified list), a redlink telling "hey, we don't have information on this topic yet" is infinitely better than a redirect to the timeline they're already on Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDYES Fieari (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree this is a case of WP:REDYES. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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