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 Dogma in the Catholic Church. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Theological definition (Catholicism) → Papal infallibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The expression is way too broad. Not every theological definition (as in "to define something") written by a Catholic theologian of Church Father was approved by the pope. Furthermore, not all dogmas and theological definitions the Catholic Church believes fall under papal infallibility, e.g. the dogmas proclaimed by the seven ecumenical councils (unless you are doing historical revisionism). I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Dogma in the Catholic Church agree that papal infallibility isn't the right target for this one, but definition as a term used to reference dogmas is a pretty uniquely Catholic phraseology, so worth keeping the redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Dogma in the Catholic Church per TB. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was restore article and send to AfD. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Francium fluoride → Francium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on the English Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looks like this is a {{R from merge}} based on the talk page even though the edit summary just says "redirected", and the merged content where francium fluoride is mentioned I assume was removed through subsequent edits. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that any content was actually merged into Francium when francium fluoride was redirected on 3 December 2008, so it was really a WP:BLAR. So overall, this article was PRODed, DePRODed, tagged for merging to francium (without starting a discussion, however), then unilaterally blanked and redirected to francium. The old merge banner was added to the talk page years later. So I would restore the 30 November 2008 version of the article, remove the merge banner, and send to AfD to determine the best course of action. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be merged to electronegativity instead, considering the content of the stub, if it could be referenced. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mdewman6 's suggestion --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do what Mdewman6 suggests. That seems like the best course of action here. 15:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Omar Baddar → Arab American Institute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search suggests that Baddar is not primarily known for a role at this organization [1]. Delete unless a justification can be provided _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, unclear why Baddar would redirect to this page; he is never mentioned in the article. Apathyash (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 soft delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• China Insights → Kanzhongguo#China Insights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target; appears to have formerly been mentioned there, but removed following this edit. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 23:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rashaun O'Neal → Shaquille O'Neal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a WP:PTM for Shaq because he does not use his middle name in any context. Searching the name primarily brought up a Bowling Green wide receiver (eg: [2][3] [4]). Therefore, someone searching this is going to want the football player, which we do not have an article on, so delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a search for his full name Shaquille Rashaun O'Neal is conceivable, he's not known by his middle name.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• September 11, 2001 → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget redirect from September 11 attacks → Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks for more information about the specific date. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – 9/11 is what the vast majority of readers want while typing the specific date. --2405:201:9002:E06A:E480:33C4:738A:4E41 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The timeline article is hatnoted from the first section of the main article. I don't see any reason to target the narrower of the two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in the absence of using a more specific search term it seems best to take readers to the general article and letting them follow links to more specific content if they desire. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - redirecting from a synonym for the main article to a detail article target would violate the principle of least surprise. -- Beland (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pronouncement of Lacy → Luis de Lacy#Execution and rehabilitation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of any pronouncement neither in the section the redirect leads to, nor in the rest of the article. Veverve (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is mentioned as a pronunciamento at Francisco Milans del Bosch, and because it is referenced from a blog, I have tagged it as unreliable. Jay (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Armenians in the Maldives, Retarget the rest to Armenian population by country. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Armenians in Nicaragua → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Finland → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in finland → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Albania → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in norway → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Morocco → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Ecuador → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Japan → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Luxembourg → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in the Maldives → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Cuba → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Thailand → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenians in Ireland → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Armenian New Zealanders → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned on target page. Mass-created from a completionist agenda, but is just cruft. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Armenians in norway, delete the rest. I think there are around 1,000 Armenians in Norway. Armenians in Norway doesn't exist and need to be created. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:A1B4:3655:3EF1:C0A0 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This one struck like the one lower down, since on further review it appears the user is not just socking, but giving random !votes with each new IP, so not even the first !vote can be taken as having been made in good faith. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget most to Armenian population by country where there is a table listing the Armenian diaspora of most countries. The table does not include the Maldives, so that redirect can be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget most to Armenian population by country per Tavix, delete Armenians in the Maldives. Also create redirect Armenians in Norway per previous IPs. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:2D51:E764:39B6:55EA (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On the same /64 as one of said previous IPs. !vote struck as presumptive IP-socking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maldives, retarget rest per Tavix. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Revert and send to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Lights Free Education High School → Gannavaram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, not mentioned at target page. Though it was redirected without discussion, many Andra Pradesh schools have been deleted recently. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert BLAR and send to AFD. AFD is the proper venue to reach consensus on how to handle this page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AfD per above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Computing power → Computer performance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Computer power → Power supply unit (computer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Too generic to target something spectfic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguate between power supply and computing performance -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which title should the disambiguation be at? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would choose "computer power" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These individually look good to me, unless the nom wants to list alternate targets, in which case we can disambiguate. And why are they clubbed under a single nomination, unless the nom is suggesting that both redirects should point to a single target? Jay (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both as-is, I don't see anything wrong with either redirect. "Computer power" is the physical power for computers, whereas "computing power" is the amount of processing power it takes to compute a task. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both as is per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Canon (basic principle). -- Aervanath (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Literary canon → Western canon#Literary canon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Was previously nominated, but in a complex discussion about three redirects that only found consensus for what to do with the other two. This current target is too narrow and possibly a case of systemic bias, because the phrase "literary canon" is used by RSs to refer to many different literary canons: Slovene poetry, Ottoman literary canon, South African literary canon, Caribbean literary canon, Chinese literary canon, Thai literary canon, etc. I suggest retargeting to Canon (basic principle). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle provided that these other literary canons are added to the list in Canon (basic principle) (which I guess means that they need at least stub articles first?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a redirect with possibilities. Since it has WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, Literary canon should probably be a WP:SPINOUT page that has brief descriptions of canons that don't have enough WP:RS coverage for a full article, that also links out to canons that already have their own pages, like Western canon, Decad (Sumerian texts), Thirteen Classics, etc. That would also allow moving a fair amount of WP:OOS that's currently on Western canon to a better page. But until/unless that hypothetical article is drafted, Canon (basic principle) is the most appropriate page for it to redirect to for now. - car chasm (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The mention of literary canons in the article Canon (basic principle) dates to a few months two years ago and appears to be tacked on to it simply because it's another meaning of the same word. I don't think it belongs there. Unless the article's scoped is sufficiently broadened and its title changed, then it's not an appropriate target. If the redirect is to be retargeted, then it should probably point as an {{R from related term}} to Classic book (whose lede suitably contains a discussion of literary canons) or to a definition (yet to be added) somewhere within Literature. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy with retargeting to Classic book. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely 'classic book' means a single particularly notable example, whereas 'literary canon' describes an exemplary collection of classics? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at a literary canon as a collection of classic books. Regardless, Classic book is currently the only article with appropriate discussion of the topic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nominator's proposal, per nominator's rationale. Veverve (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I started digging into the proposed target article, and ended up sending it to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon (basic principle). – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple proposed targets and one of them has an ongoing AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the participants of the previous RfD (regardless of whether they had an opinion about the Literary canon redirect): SWinxy, Johnbod, Shhhnotsoloud, Dimadick, Thryduulf, Ploni, 64.229.90.53, 力, Marcocapelle, SnowFire, Godsy, and Mdewman6. Jay (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping, but I don't have strong opinions about this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn it into a dab page? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what we would be disambiguating. There's no fixed list of literary canons; rather, it's a generic description that can be applied to various literary traditions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is more than one literary canon, and the Western canon is not that significant to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Katherine Ruth Heyman. I will add hatnotes. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine Heyman → Kathryn Heyman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I recently added an article for pianist Katherine Ruth Heyman, who some sources refer to without Ruth. I am unsure if this redirect should be retargeted to her with a hatnote that she's not to be confused with Kathryn Heyman, or if the redirect should be split to a disambiguation page RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I lean retarget, but would be okay with disambiguation too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. MarioGom (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Katherine Ruth Heyman as a correct spelling. Add hatnotes to both articles to avoid confusion. - Eureka Lott 14:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Welnetham Priory → Little Whelnetham  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was an article and later turned into a redirect and later moved to include "Priory". Google shows almost nothing for things like "Little Welnetham Priory" (only this redirect), "Little Whelnetham Priory" (1 result), "Welnetham Priory" (5 results) and "Welnetham Priory" (3 results, 1 being the redirect). There is mention here about a priory but it could be something else. I suggest either delete or add info in the village if its appropriate and did exist. This could be restored and sent to AFD if people aren't confortable about deleting at RFD. It is listed at List of monastic houses in Suffolk but unlike others it doesn't list any sources or coordinates. Others like Kersey Priory have been improved but its not clear if this one can, some like Edwardstone Priory are covered in their location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why it needs to be restored, if its not too controversial then I don't see why it can't be deleted at RFD instead of AFD? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because RfD does not and should not delete article content that does not meet a CSD criterion and/or has not been discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not? There's nothing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion that says it can't. Can't the consensus at RFD be used like the consensus at AFD? I'd just trust the judgement of the closer. There are 3 outcomes with articles, option 1, the topic is notable and has its own page, option 2, the topic isn't notable but can be covered in another article and option 3, the topic doesn't even merit covering in a different article and should be deleted. In this case given the lack of coverage its unlikely 1 would apply so we can chose between keeping as a redirect and mentioning it at the target or deleting completely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because RfD is about assessing redirects and does not consider things like notability, reliability of sources, or other matters that are important at AfD so any consensus at RfD cannot be concluded to be reliable in that regard. Also, editors who may be knowledgeable about the topic or who know of relevant sources for an article will not be looking at the article at RfD (they rightly expect content discussions to be at the more watched AfD) so would be denying them the opportunity to express their opinion. This is not simply pointless bureaucracy that I've made up, it's been the standing operating procedure at RfD for as long as I've been here (well over a decade) for good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a section in Little Welnetham about a Priory so the redirect makes sense as long as that section is in place. Crouch, Swale, are you challenging that section? For what it is worth, I am comfortable with deleting article content at RfD if there is consensus for it; editors at RfD are smart enough to tell if something is clearly not going to survive an AfD. I disagree with the bureaucratic assertion that article content must be deleted at AfD (and I have been attending RfD discussions for over a decade as well). I do see a misapplication of WP:BLAR though. If there is disagreement about the blank-and-redirect (ie: someone thinks it should be an article and someone thinks it should be a redirect), it is to be restored and taken to AfD. However, no one has put forward a case for having a stand-alone article on the subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, silly me, I did searches on Google as well as HeritageGateway but didn't find the information in the article! Even though there is very little evidence of the actual name "Little Welnetham Priory" being used for that priory (which seems to be the one Heritage Gateway refers to) I guess its a reasonable search term for that priory so perhaps refine to Little Whelnetham#Priory per WP:CHEAP since that's again probably the same priory as the article was for but I'm not against deletion if others think its appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is - a red to Little Whelnetham - not seeing the issue here at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Opinion was split between delete, move, retarget and keeping as is, and there was no consensus developing as the discussion progressed. Jay (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Christmas parade → Santa Claus parade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• DELETE per WP:REDLINK; as determined from the discussion on the talk page Talk:Santa Claus parade, this article is about Santa Claus parades and not Christmas parades in general. Therefore the redirect is misleading, and should be redlinked to encourage creation of an article on the general topics. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - At most only half of the parades discussed in the body of the Santa Claus parade article talks are actually named "Santa Claus parade". The rest have various names, including Thanksgiving Day parade, Christmas parade, etc., and it's not at all clear whether Santa Claus is even featured in them. Someone who looks up "Christmas parade" in Wikipedia ought to be redirected to the Santa Claus parade article which has at least some information about the concept rather being sent to a search page on which "Santa Claus parade" may or may not be the first entry listed. As far as thinking that seeing a redlink in an article will encourage someone to create a "Christmas parade" article, it's likely that the new article would contain much of the same information as the Santa Claus one since that one is so unfocused. Indyguy (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus was determined on the talk page, that the article is about Santa parades and not Christmas parades in general. Thus, this redirect is inappropriate. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An RM where two were in favor and two were against is "no consensus" for moving the article, which is much different than declaring that "consensus was determined". If a consensus were to develop here, this would be the first consensus for making a change. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article clearly mentions the redirect title in the lead, suggesting that this is a probable search term (unless if for some reason the alternate title is not correct). Aasim (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the point. It is incorrect because Christmas parades do not always have Santas, thus "Christmas parade" is a greater topic, and not restricted to Santa parades. It would be like redirecting President of the United States to Donald Trump, he is one president, but not all presidents. Thus this is one type of Christmas parade, but not all types of Christmas parade. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and enjoy the red link. Christmas parades aren't all about Santa, you know. Chumpih. (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect to use the broader term as the article title. The article clearly describes Christmas parades, and a Santa Claus parade is one such parade. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse per Tavix. No reason for the article to be at the narrower title, and no reason to fork the broad topic of Christmas parades between "Santa Claus" ones and others, especially when RSes may be unclear in many cases on whether a parade qualify as a Santa Claus parade, begetting SYNTH. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose reversing the redirect without another WP:RM. The assertion that Christmas parades and Santa Claus parades are two different things, or that one is a subset of the other, needs to be demonstrated. Are there really Christmas parades without Santa Claus? Or is "Santa Clause parade" just the more secular name? If they are different topics, we might need two articles. This is the wrong forum for that discussion. No preference as to keep or delete the redirect. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are parades for Christmas without Santas, since there are Christmas parades in places where Santa is not part of the local culture, and some other figure takes the role, like Father Winter. Or where the focus of the procession is Mary and Joseph. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If any of that is true, just write the article about it. You don't need to delete the redirect first; just write right over it. As it is, the article titled "Santa Claus parade" is all about parades featuring Santa Claus. Station1 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it is an article about parades featuring Santa, the redirect should therefore be deleted -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Christmas and holiday season parades.-- Aervanath (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Casualties of the Tigray War. There is consensus that Edaga Hibret massacre is a plausible name for Idaga Hibret massacre and that it should have the same target as the latter redirect. There's no prejudice against nominating the two redirects as a bundle. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Edaga Hibret massacre → Idaga Hibret massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused redirect that was created by sock CITESPAMing to his own self-published work. Platonk (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and because it is now a double redirect. --WMSR (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Check further - Wikimapia describes a place Edaga Hibret in Ethiopia near its northern border with Eritrea. I also note that at Idiga Hibret massacre, Idiga Hibret links to Asgede Tsimbla, a larger district with many WP linked and redlinked towns. If Ediga Hibret (with numerous Google hits) is an alternate English spelling of Idiga Hibret, then it should have a similar redirect as should the massacre, which itself gives no details other than a ref. Facts707 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All spam from the now-blocked sockpuppet. He invented these massacre names based off his own selfpublished document which he REFSPAMmed everywhere. Each alleged event got redirects with sometimes multiple alternate spellings as well as put it in the town, the district, and sometimes neighboring areas. He cross-referenced all his creations everywhere he could. Try google for "Edaga Hibret massacre" (any spelling); you won't find any reliable source using the terms. I have dozens more to run through RfD (albeit with a better starting explanation to reduce relistings). The last remaining target is a single link in 'Casualties' and that's not even a reliable source citation (see disclaimer at bottom/end of the source).Platonk (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the same target as Idaga Hibret massacre if Idaga Hibret is also called as Edaga Hibret. This map from www.humanitarianresponse.info shows the name as "Edaga Hibret" in Asgede, Tigray, Ethiopia. Jay (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Casualties_of_the_Tigray_War#Idaga_Hibret_massacre per Jay.-- Aervanath (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Platonk: It sounds like what you want here is to just have Idaga Hibret massacre deleted. So why not tag that with G5? Then this would be an {{avoided double redirect}} for a title that no longer exists (a de facto G8) and thus fit for deletion. Is there a procedural issue I'm missing here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Looks like the last remaining use of the master redirect (Idaga Hibret massacre) has been removed since I submitted this on 23 Dec. So yes, delete also the master redirect. The problem with G5 is that it was created before he got blocked; G5 requires it to have been created after. However, G8 seems to fit (Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted). Now tagged. Platonk (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, yeah. Hadn't looked at when the block was. But I don't see how that's a G8... I think where I come down on this is keep without prejudice against refiling bundled with Idaga Hibret massacre. As long as that redirect exists, this is a valid alternate spelling, so should also exist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.