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. The prevailing argument for deletion here was the existence of other plausible targets. Several editors has concerns as to the verifiability of "SHAGOS" as an acronym, but most editors did not comment on this, and thus this outcome neither endorses nor precludes the potential creation of SHAGOS as a redirect pointing to this target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shagos → Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's an acronym. HotdogPi 20:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware of this, but the main usage of this acronym I can see are Tumblr blogs - certainly no sustained usage in RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an acronym and WP:CHEAP applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be a little-used acronym, but if anyone does search for this, this article is likely what they're looking for. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 08:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Though not directly applicable since this is not a disambiguation page, WP:DABABBREV has sensible guidance: Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation ... If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page. Abbreviations are sometimes formed from titles in non-obvious ways (e.g. dropping short words, taking more than one letter from a given word so that it sounds better, etc.), which is the whole reason that abbreviations, like any other content, need to be verified in reliable sources as opposed to just something made up in school one day. Meanwhile, this may interfere with searches for ShagOS (which is mentioned at partition type). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (in response to the IP) It might be worth turning this redirect into a disambiguation page to point readers searching for either result in the right direction. (i.e can refer to an acronym for Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows or ShagOS, an operating system). JaventheAldericky (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless the "ShagOS" subject has an article or is mentioned and identified in another article, its inclusion in a disambiguation page would wholly fail MOS:DAB. The only mention on Wikipedia I could find of "ShagOS" is in the article Partition type, but its mention is limited to only by name in four fields in a chart without saying anything else to identify or describe it, making Partition type unhelpful as either a target for a redirect (or a mention on a disambiguation page) named "ShagOS". Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Besides being a non-WP:RS verifiable acronym, third party search results for the term "Shagos" return results such as a restaurant and a band ... which have nothing to do with the target ... and virtually no results about the target. In other words, it could be quite reasonable to assume that anyone searching this term is not looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Chagas: It seems to be a more likely misspelling of Chagas especially spelled as Shagos versus SHAGOS. TartarTorte 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that Chagas is a disambiguation page, I don't see how that's likely at all. That would be telling our readers that if they are looking up "Shagos", they must actually be looking for Chagas. I'd think the search results provided if this redirect were deleted would be more helpful for our readers in possibly locating what they are attempting to find (and whether we have anything about it or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the issue with retargeting to a disambiguation page. Alternative, we could have a hatnote on wherever this ends up, but it seems like a very plausible misspelling due to the pronunciation of Chagos. TartarTorte 19:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per confusion with ShagOS, but I would have no issues with SHAGOS being redirected to the current target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unused unverified acronym with incorrect capitalization. Although shagus redirects to Chagas disease, I don't think there is a good reason to follow suit. Jay 💬 14:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, my first assumption when seeing this term was that it's a phonetic misspelling of Sheigetz. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's also a very plausible phonetic misspelling. Striking retarget as there are two phonetic retargets leading to there being no suitable target. TartarTorte 13:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellohi!: A 3rd relist is exceptional, but this a 4th relist. Can you justify, so we know what kind of discussions would warrant a 4th relist? Jay 💬 03:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay:  Self-trout It was erroneous, being meant to be a closure request (not long after I did that, Tavix gave me stern reminders on my talk page about some misfires I did today). Feel free to ignore the notice and close. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I cannot close as I'm involved. Jay 💬 04:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:CR for help. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: After seeing Rosguill's argument about Sheigetz also being a possible target as a phonetic misspelling. I no longer think Chagas is a appropriate target. Without the capitalization, I also think Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is not a precise enough target. TartarTorte 13:06, 17 August 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• C(programming language) → C (programming language)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Textbook WP:RDAB title/disambiguator spacing issue. No incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and user:Godsy. Chumpih ^t 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:03, 18 August 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn after NE2 was able to find evidence of Camden Township's existence. Those details have since been added to the target article. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 13:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Camden Township, New Jersey → Camden, New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Camden is not a township and I cannot find much to say it ever was. It was incorporated as a city in 1828 and seems to have been unincorporated before then, but this is an implausible search term as Camden, NJ isn't referred to as a township. TartarTorte 20:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968, page 110:

Camden township*

1832 Mar. 1 17 Formed in Gloucester Co. from Newton twp., coextensive with Camden city. Page is in P. L. 1831. 56

1844 237 Set off to Camden Co. 56

1848 Feb. 25 97 Repealed. To Camden city.

Therefore, keep. --NE2 23:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NE2 Thank you for finding that. I've added it to the article and the nomination will be thereby withdrawn. TartarTorte 13:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NE2 proving its existence. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. If possible, the township thing should be briefly mentioned in the article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:40, 17 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Monitored environmental assessment → Environmental Monitoring and Assessment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misleading redirect. This journal was never known by the name "Monitered Environmental Assessment" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also misleading because the magazine does not deal with monitoring assessments. Paradoctor (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title of this publication (a scientific journal) is "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment" [1]. So, it covers analysis of monitoring and assessment. In a manner of speaking the assessments are monitored because they keep track of their assessments, which are then most likely published. I don't agree it is misleading. It is simply a redirect page.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, you can shoehorn an idiosyncratic interpretation into pretty much everything, if you really want to. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and this is not a useful redirect to the target page. It is not a likely search term. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 17 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command → List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is to a list page with hundreds of entries. All but one do not relate at all to the redirect title and there is no clue to find the single entry that agrees with the name of the redirect. Moreover, 1 wing is not a list. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The above was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, where it was created improperly and gathering dust. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep(see below) I count 55 SAC entries. How do you figure there is only one? Paradoctor (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lineagegeek: Paradoctor (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Paradoctor: You appear to misunderstand. This is not a redirect of all SAC wings, but of "Air Base Wings" assigned to Strategic Air Command. (there are others for different kinds of wings assigned to SAC). The 3902d Air Base Wing is the only one of the 50 odd SAC wings in the list that meets this criterion. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lineagegeek: Right, I didn't see that. But I still see three "Air Base Wings": 3902d, 3960th and 4083d.
BTW, I believe new comments/!votes are supposed to be below the relisting notice. And the "delete" is redundant, you are the one who originated the deletion. Paradoctor (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only the 3902d Air Base Wing is: Strategic Air Command; *and* an Air Base Wing of all the entries on the list. The other two ABWs are not SAC. Inappropriate redirect. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The list says 3960th and 4083d entries are SAC. So you're saying the list is wrong about them, right? Paradoctor (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lineagegeek: Paradoctor (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was trying to emphasize what Lineagegeek was saying. He put together that list and any discrepancies - you may be right!! - should be directed towards him. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Paradoctor Buckshot06 All three were SAC units, but the 3906th and 4083d both had other designations (including non-SAC assignment in the case of the 4083d). Still, even 3 entries out of 59 SAC wings on the list, out of 109 air base wings, and hundreds of other wings on the list that are neither SAC units nor air base wings the redirect is still not appropriate. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I have no real qualms about lists with only three entries, the redirect is somewhat misleading, as it does not point to a list, but neither does it point to a single entry. Since only project pages link to it, and given the historical context of this issue (15 years!), I'd say deletion sounds about right. Paradoctor (talk) 15:26, 19 August 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 Volvo 200 Series. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lambda sond → Oxygen sensor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Although "Lambda" appears in the article, the phrase "Lambda sond" does not, nor is there any sense of what this might mean. BD2412 T 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Check engine light. This is another name for Oxygen sensor, although not stated there. It is mentioned in Check engine light, as well as a few Volvo articles. MB 04:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "sond" and "sonde" mean probe in English; so this is a probe for investigating the lambda ratio -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFFL. The term "sond" is not used in English - the usual term is Lambda sensor, for which a redirect already exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't mean some people won't search on "Lamda sond", which actually has been written about in English. MB 00:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Volvo 200 Series. It appears from MB's links that "Lambda Sond" (with a capital S) was a proprietary term used by Volvo for its automatic mixture control system when it was first introduced in 1976. This system included a lambda sensor, but the term referred to the whole system, not just the sensor. The term is used in the Volvo 200 series article. Tevildo (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two suggested targets now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt for consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Volvo 200 Series per Tevildo, and tag as {{r miscapitalization}} and {{r from product}}. Paradoctor (talk) 21:18, 16 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Accelerated phase → chronic myelogenous leukemia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a general term that may apply to many other subject areas than cancer. Thus it shouldn't default to something specific. Also it doesn't really make sense to let it have it's own page

Since proposed deletion does not apply to redirects, procedurally relisting at RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the nom that this may be too vague to be a good redirect, though most uses of the phrase in enwiki do refer to cancer. If kept, a better target would be Accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. Also, there is an old stuff in the edit history that should be considered if we are considering deleting the redirect. Disambiguation is another possibility, but doesn't seem like it would make sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too vague -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:49, 18 August 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 Hangul Syllables#Block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 겋 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겊‎ → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겉‎ → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겈 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겇 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겆 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겅 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 겄 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• 것 → Hangul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These specific hangul syllables are targeted at Hangul (among with many, many others) but they are not mentioned at all in the article. They are mentioned at Hangul Syllables, but it's unclear if we want to retarget many, many syllables to there, or if they should be deleted. TartarTorte 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hangul Syllables#Block. While that table is ungodly, these are mentioned there. Single-syllable words like these generally have several meanings, so it's best to just point these there. ✗plicit 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:27, 16 August 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Glagnar's Human Rinds → I Second That Emotion (Futurama)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Minor plot element not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 16 August 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Foobar → Google#Workplace culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of Foobar (or FUBAR) at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Google Foobar is a test for hiring developers at google; however it's not currently mentioned on the page and probably doesn't really need mentioning. It's (or was? I don't know if it's actually still around) a big deal to get an invite to Google Foobar, but none if it is notable enough for a mention on the google page really. TartarTorte 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a real thing, but it's not mentioned on the page. Not helpful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is real, but not mentioned at the at the target and probably not significant enough to be mentioned. --Mvqr (talk) 10:18, 22 August 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 disambiguate Websafe and retarget Web-safe to this newly created DAB. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Websafe → Web colors#Web-safe colors  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Web-safe → Web colors#Web-safe colors  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:PTM issues and possibly WP:XY: Between Websafe colors/Web-safe colors and Websafe fonts/Web-safe fonts, it is unclear which targets these should go to since the use of this phrase as a PTM is rather unclear. Also, note that wikt:websafe exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since wikt:websafe says the adjective "websafe" applies specifically to colours. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate What Wiktionary (which is of course not a reliable source) says here is irrelevant; the article web typography uses the term so the title is ambiguous. Incidentally, someone proposed disambiguation at Talk:Web-safe back in 2008. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to find consensus as it seems split right now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 16:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate The term is ambiguous, and there is WP:NOPRIMARY. Paradoctor (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above comments. CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have attempted a dab draft at websafe. Jay 💬 04:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig at Websafe (and retarget web-safe there) per the above. I've tweaked Jay's draft slightly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 25 August 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. The edit history of the list has been pasted to Talk:456th Bombardment Wing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command → 456th Bombardment Wing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• This redirects to an article for a single unit, and is therefore, not a list. Moreover, as shown on 456th Bombardment Wing the 456th Troop Carrier Wing was never assigned to Strategic Air Command, but was assigned to Eighteenth Air Force, a Tactical Air Command headquarters for its entire existence. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• User talk:Lineagegeek, agree with delete rather than redirect - and content should be merged. Edit history is minute.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The above was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, where it was created improperly and gathering dust. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to minimal participation and it being a procedural nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 15:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Lineagegeek TartarTorte 16:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the quoted discussion that took place in the AfD, I can't think of a reason that this misleading redirect should be kept. - 2pou (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, Delete. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a merge and redirect. If deleting, copy the page history to Talk:456th Bombardment Wing. Jay 💬 15:53, 24 August 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 disambiguate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuckfest → Group sex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a valid synonym. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with MZMcBride— Tazuco ✉️ 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ↑ Globally blocked user, cross-wiki abuse, sockpuppetry. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid and fairly widespread synonym for the target. Redirects aren't articles, and they don't need to use tame language to be useful to readers. Glades12 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Glades12: But that is not my actual concern. The problem is that the term as such does not appear in the target (see WP:R#PLA). Hildeoc (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a problem, but I don't think deleting this redirect is a good solution. Maybe we can find a reliable source (not Urban Dictionary, of course) and add a list of slang terms at Group sex#Terms? Glades12 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Fuckfest (album) to the base title and hatnote for wikt:fuckfest. There is no other encyclopedic topic by this name. This term has multiple meanings besides group sex, and is not suitable for disambiguation among the relevant articles for those meanings (adding large numbers of slang synonyms to those articles in an effort to meet WP:DABMENTION will not substantially increase any reader's encyclopedic understanding of those topics.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)r[reply]

  or we could keep this target and add {{Redir|Fuckfest|3=Fuckfest (album)}} (displays ""Fuckfest" redirects here. For other uses, see Fuckfest (album).") to group sex. — Tazuco ✉️ 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a suitable redirect to group sex in the first place, since the word can also mean multiple acts of sex with a single partner, or clusterfuck/imbroglio/disaster. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to its wiktionary entry at wikt:fuckfest, which is a much better target than the current one. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per others below now that a draft has been provided. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Fuckfest (album) to Fuckfest with {{Wiktionary}}. It's too vague to have 1 target explaining it, and there's album with that name. CLYDEFRANKLIN 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this obscure album should be the primary topic, as most readers will be searching for the term and not the album. Doesn't matter if its the only Wikipedia article we have at this title. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between the current target, the film, and the Wiktionary page given the lack of consensus so far. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Mellohi, and per CycloneYoris's objections to the move of Fuckfest (album). At least in my dialect of English, this is only ever used to refer to things that are FUBAR, so I'd disagree with the suggestion that group sex is the primary topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the page drafted at the redirect by 61.239.39.90. Jay 💬 08:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. I've added an explicit link to group sex at the draft dab but not brilliantly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 26 August 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Survival thriller → Thriller (genre)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. If this must survive deletion, one must mention it with sources, preferably as a section. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned at survival film either, therefore delete per WP:XY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:XY as a mix of genres. Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: This redirect currently has 13 incoming links from the article space, so WP:REDLINK may apply. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 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 List of Star Trek characters (A–F)#Duras, son of Ja'rod. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ja'rod → List of Star Trek characters (G-M)#Ja'rod  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Turned into a redirect to List of Star Trek characters (G-M)#Ja'rod by User:Cbbkr in Octobe 2013. Not mentioned at the target article. Wikipedia does not contain any information about Ja'rod so the redirect is useless. JIP | Talk 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Star Trek characters (A–F)#Duras, son of Ja'rod, where the father is briefly mentioned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing to say about this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget per Pppery. The information that Pppery found shows that we do have something to say about this character. There's enough info from Duras's bio and in the history of the redirect to add a blurb on Ja'rod himself if someone is up to the task. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no proper target. The suggested target won't be proper as List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters#Lursa and B'Etor mentions them as daughters of Ja'rod. Also Ja'rod is mentioned at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters#Officer exchange as Mogh's greatest rival, and one who collaborated with the Romulans. Jay 💬 08:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to support retargeting to my originally proposed target, as it contains significantly more information on Ja'rod than both of Jay's suggestions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my vote and agree to Pppery's target as a central location having the same information available at both sections I mentioned. However, I did not find the significantly more information that Pppery claims. Jay 💬 16:52, 23 August 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 Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BLPprod → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect from article namespace to project namespace. Could redirect to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. FAdesdae378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Only used on 7 pages, many of which are related to this RFD. If it is kept, its current target is the correct one. There are two types of prod: regular PROD, and BLPPROD. It is currently pointing to the page on BLPPROD, which is correct. It does not need to point to a page that talks about both kinds of prods. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  BLPPROD is mentioned in Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. FAdesdae378 21:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As an analogy/example, WP:AFD redirects to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and not Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It's good to be specific. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary WP:XNR that is a little bit too "meta" to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion as there is mainspace content on the subject. J947 † ^edits 04:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the mainspace article. Good find, J947! Glades12 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear this was the nom's find; it's just that everyone's eyes seemingly managed to trick themselves into thinking it was another project page. J947 † ^edits 22:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, I should've paid more attention. Glades12 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. May I ask the reason that the folks above want WP:BLPPROD and BLPprod to have different targets? And is there precedent for having shortcuts in mainspace that point to projectspace? Finally, why are we maintaining a mainspace redirect that no one uses, as evidenced by the "what links here" page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Novem Linguae: We're treating this redirect and WP:BLPPROD differently because they're in different namespaces. People browsing mainspace (especially our readers who don't edit) are obviously looking for encyclopedic content, so if possible, it's better to redirect them to a content article than a project page. People who forgot to type in the namespace while looking for a project page can use the self-referential hatnotes in articles about Wikipedia anyway. As for your last question, we don't delete redirects (or most other types of pages, for that matter) just because few people use them. A redirect doesn't hurt anyone unless it's misleading, confusing, disruptive etc., and deleting one that can plausibly be retargeted does more harm than good. WP:Cross-namespace redirects is an essay but gives a pretty good overview of this issue. Glades12 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. I did not find convincing the retarget alternative to save the deletion, although the proposed target has a mention of "BLP-PROD". The redirect is 7 years old but has negligible incoming links (it could be because of the odd capitalization) or pageviews. If it was a useful redirect, it would have been clear by now. Jay 💬 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the excellent target article, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. BD2412 T 16:07, 20 August 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. ✗plicit 12:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fate/Extra Last Project → Fate/Extra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm assuming this is meant to refer to Fate/Extra Last Encore, which was first announced five days before this redirect was created. I'm not sure why we need this redirect still if the name has been known for a few years now. If it's kept, however, the best target I can think of would be the target's section about this anime adaptation. Regards, SONIC678 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 18 August 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 Crimea#Hydrography. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Crymea river → Chyornaya (Crimea)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misspelling of an ambiguous term, as pointed out by 61.239.39.90. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Crimea river and Category:Rivers of Crimea. CLYDEFRANKLIN 03:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow the determination of Crimea river, tag as {{R from misspelling|Crimea river}} and {{R from avoided double redirect|Crimea river}} -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography and tag per 64, consistent with Crymea targeting Crimea. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as suggested by IP64. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cry Me a River and mention Crimea rivers there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cry Me a River as suggested by headbomb; tag as per IP64. Radzy0 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that the RfD for Crimea river was closed as Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_10#Crimea river showed consensus that the pun is not a good target, this redirect should clearly also be targeted to Crimea#Hydrography. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 22 August 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. ✗plicit 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian Taliban → Dominion theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Pejorative term not discussed at the target, could equally refer to other articles about far-right Christian groups/ideologies, even within the context of US politics. Previously deleted for the above reasons following an RfD discussion about a decade ago, having pointed to a similar target, so I think this is worth a new discussion rather than WP:G4.

• Delete as per RFD Delete number 3. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not think that RFD D3 applies here as there are quite a few media outlets who have used the term "Christian Taliban" especially after Adam Kinzinger's use of it against Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene; however, I cannot seem to find an appropriate target for this. It seems to really either needs to be its own article exploring the term (so deletion per WP:REDYES) or delete because there is no place to target it. If kept (or retargeted), a {{R from non-neutral name}} could be thrown on it. TartarTorte 13:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at a quick Google Scholar search, "Christian Taliban" as an epithet in the US context might meet notability guidelines, although most usage I see on Google Scholar would be primary with respect to that topic. However, it's also apparently been used as a self-label by Ukrainian far-right group Right Sector, and there's also coverage of an attempt in the 2000s of establishing a genuine Christian faction of the Taliban in Peshawar. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google confirms it is a term in common use. [2]. Greyhound 84 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those results fall afoul of the issue I noted in the nomination statement and echoed by TartarTorte, that while this term is used as an epithet for elements of the US religious right wing, there isn't a single clear article that appears appropriate as a target, as coverage of potentially-valid referents is spread across various articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can't find a single better retarget candidate. Will be open to retargeting if suggestions are floated. This loosely-defined term is broader than just Dominion theology. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It could be made into a disambiguation page instead. Greyhound 84 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Schoolboy humour → Black comedy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Same applies to the Schoolyard humour redirect)

These redirect to Black comedy, which I don't think is accurate. Was previously a redirect to Off-color humor, which I also don't think fits. If any editors have thoughts for a better redirect, I'd like to know. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking that Sophomoric humor might be a better target. - Eureka Lott 00:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No suitable target on Wikipedia, no Wiktionary entry. DuckDuckGo didn't come up with a definition either. Redirecting to humour as an {{r from hyponym}} would be pointless, as it is not even mentioned there, let alone defined. Paradoctor (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Schoolboy humor, the American English variant, doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I could not find a suitable target. It used to be a redirect to Toilet humor which mentions schoolboy songs. However Delete as it'll be incorrect to represent all of schoolboy jokes as toilet humour. Jay 💬 14:28, 23 August 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 Olive (color)#Dark olive green and added hatnote. Also created Dark olive which now targets the same article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dark Olive → Shades of green#Olive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned 'specifically in Olive (color). (This could reasonably target Olive (color)#Dark olive green I suppose, but readers may be looking this term up looking for a "dark" version of an olive, as explained in the next sentence.) In addition, I don't think this would be helpful being retargeted to Olive since readers will probably think of redirected there "What is a dark olive?" and not have their question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Mayhaps retargeting this to Olive (color)#Dark olive green and adding
  "Dark olive" redirects here. For varieties of the fruit, see Olive § Cultivars.
  would do the trick. If so, then might as well create Dark olive now to avoid potentially split targets later. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:06, 17 August 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dark olive drab → Shades of green#Olive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and not specifically mentioned in Olive (color). (There is Olive (color)#Olive drab, and there are some variants there including a variant that looks significantly darker that the initial version, but there isn't a color/shade specifically named "dark olive drab" there.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 16 August 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. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Diethard Reid(Code Geass) → List of Code Geass characters#Diethard Ried  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:RDAB issue due to lack of space between title and disambiguator. The version with the proper spacing, Diethard Reid (Code Geass), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's an implausible typo, or at least that seems to be the general consensus around redirects without a space before the disambiguator. TartarTorte 12:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this title with its WP:UNNATURAL error. I get it, it's existed since July 2008, but its history consists mostly of moving it and adding categories to the redirect. The correctly formatted title already exists, and the pageviews the incorrectly formatted one got since July 2015 average about one per 23 days. Not sure why we still need it. Regards, SONIC678 19:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sonic678: FWIW, my guess is that the page views are coming from a link in the deletion log of New Article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 18 August 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.