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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone 8 (2nd generation) → iPhone SE (2nd generation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think this redirect page is unnecessary. Hajoon0102 💬 23:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect doesn't make sense. I can't find any sources that refer to the 2nd gen iPhone SE as "iPhone 8 (2nd generation)" and that isn't how Apple generally name iPhones anyway. Bonoahx (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Compare with iPhone 9, which links to iPhone naming#Models never made and has a very reliable source that iPhone 9 was not ever made. It is also a rumored name for iPhone SE (2nd generation). 2405:9800:BA31:F6:F1B8:DBB0:7240:F522 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OIIIIIIIO → Jeep  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It appears pageviews suggests that there have only been 29 pageviews of this article during its entire history. The redirect doesn't appear to be something most people are actually going to use. Does this need to exist? Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 22:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The title is an ASCII representation of a Jeep grille and headlamps, so I can see why it was created. However, it doesn't seem encyclopedic and is hardly a plausible search term. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a nonsense redirect but doesn't seem plausible, only search results for the term is an Urban Dictionary entry and social media, which make it clear that it represents Jeep. Bonoahx (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would personally discourage using ASCII pictograms as redirects. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:47, 17 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of leap years → Leap year  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no list of leap years anywhere on the target page, so this redirect should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should there be. Delete as pointless. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There used to be a list article here that was deleted at AfD in 2013. Shortly thereafter, this redirect was created, then someone made a very poor attempt to recreate the list, which was reverted back to the redirect. While there are graphs with leap years in the target, there isn't a list, so delete the redirect as misleading. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Hajoon0102 💬 06:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BTW, there's already Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 14 March 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 peasant revolts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The revolution of farmers → 1970s peasant revolts in Thailand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

R from move leftover from the page's early history, when it stood at this title for ten days following creation, before being renamed. There's probably a better target, but I'm not sure what that would be. If one isn't identified, deletion would be best. Paul_012 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Agrarian revolution List of peasant revolts, which is more appropriate for such a general title. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC) revised --19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of peasant revolts, per JMF. Makes sense to me. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC) amended. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of peasant revolts per above. Veverve (talk) 15:04, 12 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Loveleen Mishra → Hum Log  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Hum Log is a DAB page, and a useless target. Loveleen Mishra is an actress who has appeared in Hum Log (television series), but also elsewhere; see her IMDb entry. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even if this were her one and only appearance even the series itself would not be suitable as a redirect target for her name. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to either create a new article, or because the TV series or any other article does not provide any information about the subject that is useful for the insane pageviews this page is getting. Also note that there are other articles where she is credited as Luvleen Mishra. Jay (talk) 10:24, 17 March 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 12:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicanovolcanoconiosis → Longest word in English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Currently redirects to Longest word in English but an article for the word has been created in the meantime. Suggesting either a retarget to Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis as R from misspelling, or potentially deletion, I can only find two Google results with this misspelling that are WP:CIRCULAR, from an Italian-language version of Longest word in English. Bonoahx (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone else trying to parse the typos here, it's "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicanovolcanoconiosis". Either of those typos on its own would be fairly implausible, and taken together they add up to something very implausible. This was an article for a few hours in 2006, but only a sentence long, redirected as a duplicate; its pageviews since then are nontrivial, but low enough that I find it unlikely that they're the result of any external dependency (and more likely the result of search suggestions or such). Delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Two errors is too many. Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Compare with Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, which is actually plausible misspelling. So that the spelling that contain "silicano" is considered implausible, so delete per Tamzin. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:F1B8:DBB0:7240:F522 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 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. Jay (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Golden orb → Rotundaria aurea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect may refer to other things, like Maya the Bee: The Golden Orb or an object of the same name mentioned in either Part 3 (Twin Peaks) or Dragon Quest V. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just convert it to a dab page; no need for discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. There's also Golden orb spider. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate there's also the Sun, referred to as a golden orb in poetic forms and writings -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 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 procedurally closed. The redirect can't be retargeted to the dab page because of WP:DABNAME. What needs to happen is for the the dab page to be renamed, and getting consensus for that requires an RM discussion. This is being followed up on the nominator's user talk. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Conjuration → Evocation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I changed the redirect target for Conjuration from Evocation to Conjuration (disambiguation). User:MB reverted this change on the grounds that the Hatnotes in Evocation indicate Evocation is the primary target, and any change needs to be discussed. Note that: 1. Conjuration (disambiguation) (which I have not changed) already lists uses of the term other than Evocation of spirits. 2. The Wiktionary definitions of Conjuration include uses other than Evocation of spirits. I think my change was correct, and in addition the Hatnotes for Evocation may also need to be changed. Masato.harada (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Start a requested move. If you propose that there is no primary topic for Conjuration, then the way to reach consensus on that is to propose moving Conjuration (disambiguation) to Conjuration. The base term should not be a redirect to a page with a (disambiguation) qualifier. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Start a RM discussion. In D&D, conjuration and evocation are distinct and independent; see Magic in Dungeons & Dragons#Schools of magic. If the move is made, Mdewman6 is correct that a redirect from Conjuration to Conjuration (disambiguation) will be a WP:MALPLACED error, requiring a WP:ROBIN swap. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 10 March 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 Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)#S 400 Hybrid (2009–2013). Jay (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueHybrid → Mercedes-Benz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The only mention of any kind at the current target is a part of the model name Mercedes-Benz S400 BlueHYBRID which itself is a redirect to Mercedes-Benz S-Class where the only mention is that same model name as a caption of a photo. Looking online it seems like this was the only "BlueHYBRID" model, and was only ever a prototype [1] and given the lack of recent articles I suppose it was abandoned. So potentially we could retarget to Mercedes-Benz S-Class but I would prefer deletion unless a better target can be found. A7V2 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)#S 400 Hybrid (2009–2013). BlueHYBRID is definitely a real thing that Mercedes-Benz has used in its products. The 2010 S-Class BlueHYBRID itself has been significantly covered by Car and Driver, CNET, and Motor Trend, and Autoweek, as well as being explicitly mentioned in this Edmunds review of the 2010 S-class. This is much more than enough that is needed to establish that the existence of a redirect is acceptable. But, considering that the only use of the term appears to be in a designation for the 5th generation S-class, it seems better for the redirect to go there than to generally go to the Mercedes-Benz page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had meant that the "name" had been abandoned (since I imagine the redirect was created thinking they would use it for several models). But in any case your suggested target seems quite appropriate. I will WP:BOLDly retarget Mercedes-Benz S400 BlueHYBRID there now. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 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 for now. Perhaps a fruitful next step would be to get consensus on whether or not there should be discussion of this topic at the article. This redirect seems to hinge on that question, although it's more suitable for the talk page because it's a content question therein. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dick pic program → Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be derived from a joke featured on the television show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, shown here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Except that it’s not a joke. The NSA is/was passing around pictures of naked people, and as laid out in the linked article various intelligence agencies collect bucketloads of data, it can’t be ruled out dick pics are collected too. Edward Snowden himself said in the interview, “Well, the good news is there is [= in 2012] no program named the ‘Dick Pic Program’, the bad news is they are still collecting everybody’s information. Including the dick pics.” The confusion is certainly there. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of mention at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to a prominent mention on a popular tv show and sourced quote from Snowden. It doesn't need a mention in the article, it just needs to be useful for someone searching for information... and it is certainly plausible that someone would have seen the John Oliver episode, but not be able to remember the real and official name, given that "Dick pic program" is so memorable in comparison. Redirects are cheap, and this one is pretty unambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No mention at the target. Implausible search term, with little or no pageviews. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 09:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pppery and CX Zoom: “No mention at the target” is really a non-issue. It can easily be fixed. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've added one sentence that lacks necessary context and screams of undue weight. I guess as long as that content exists the redirect should be kept (and refined to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)#Reactions of citizens), but it feels bolted on to make a point, rather than a legitimate part of the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kai Burghardt has added a mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The addition to the target page seems, per Pppery, POINTy, and I'd revert it as SYNTH but there's a bit of a Gordian Knot between the useful addition of the Smith reference and the unhelpful, SYNTHy John Oliver stuff. Regardless, for our purposes at RfD, the poorly-worded addition doesn't make clear if a "dick pic program" is a real thing (Smith, invoking Snowden, says it isn't), so I don't think this is a suitable mention to redirect readers to. It would serve to confuse rather than to educate, and we are above all else educators here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was, it is not a requirement for a redirect that the redirect’s page title is mentioned at the target. I’ve added a mention to resolve that complaint, not as an endorsement of that opinion. Different standards apply as regards to article content and redirect existence. In this discussion we evaluate the redirect, not whether the specific mention/wording I’ve inserted meets content criteria. Ultimately, redirects are cheap: Unless you consider Dick pic program as spam or counterproductive to the goals of an encyclopedia, I think it’s best to simply keep it. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 19:10, 23 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wine cats → Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Category tree  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Fear not, my last of the day. "Wine cats" could refer to a number of things, such as this book. It's surprising for this combination of two common words to instead link to an obscure projectspace subpage. No backlinks, low pageviews, and of course no way to know if readers visiting this link found what they were looking for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A redirect like that tickles the curiosity, but obviously disappoints. It would make sense only in project space and then ideally as a shortcut (WP:WINECATS?, but that already exists and goes to a somewhat different place); definitely not appropriate in the present form. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR not about felines. Also, not pointing to Category:Wines -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:51, 14 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Porn Project → Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut with the format "X Project" or "X project". Everything I said below about Ukraine Wikiproject stands, but here the greater concern is that it's a surprising redirect. "Porn Project" refers to a number of things, most notably a Christian anti-pornography group. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bad cross-namespace redirect likely to pollute autocomplete/search results. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR many such real-world projects have no relation to non-encyclopedic internal Wikipedia material -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:51, 14 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukraine Wikiproject → Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut of the format "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject". As that link shows, XNRs to WikiProjects are quite rare to begin with. Any "Wikiproject:" or "WikiProject:" pseudonamespace has been conclusively ruled out by past RfDs (see documentation here), and I think "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject" should be treated the same, as the alternative would be opening the door to thousands of such XNRs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Poor cross-namespace redirect likely to pollute autocomplete/search results. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated as much as possible. Veverve (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Q Wiki Club → Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of Queensland/QWiki Club 2017  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This XNR related to a GLAM program may have served some benefit when it was created, but isn't of any use now that the club is (apparently) no more. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for alerting on this - most Project class items related to the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in states of Australia - even where they may currently apparently no longer utilised have been kept (where possible) in archived form where possible - as a record of the activities held by the project(s) - so utilitarian concerns to date have been sublimated (so to speak) by the need to complement any metrics required by outside bodies as to the ups and downs and sideways of the projects and events. Where possible we keep the most trivial 'paper trails' for good purpose - that said and the commendable offering of a page view in the nomination (more power to the process of checking such items!) maybe in the end we dont need it - but as I am on the other side of this hot/wet continent - the more relevant editor might just be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kerry_Raymond... JarrahTree 04:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopedic WP:XNR . If this was encyclopedically notable, it'd have an encyclopedic article. Otherwise, it should be using WP:Q Wiki Club -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paulo Correa → Wikipedia:Criticisms#Paulo Correa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A section in a poorly-maintained, poorly-formatted projectspace page quoting some (unsourced!) mean things this person said about Wikipedia is not a good usage of a cross-namespace redirect, and in fact poses serious BLP concerns. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I have no opinion, either for or against this deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 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 speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury under the G7 criterion. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ASPERSIONS → Wikipedia:Casting aspersions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created with the summary ix broken link. I can only assume that someone somewhere had linked to this instead of WP:ASPERSIONS, but that's not a good reason to create an XNR. This could just be retargeted to Aspersion, but I generally disfavor all-caps redirects where there's no reason to think our readers would be expecting all-caps, per WP:COSTLY, hence I'd prefer to delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. OK. --Krinkle (talk) 13:49, 10 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia → Wikipedia:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect to a humor page. Its appearance in the search bar, Special:AllPages, etc., as a mainspace page is actively misleading, as it implies that this is a thing that happened, or might have happened, or at least an encyclopedically notable hoax. N.B.: This page has been deleted five times before, but never by a consensus discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no problems with deletion here. Graham87 14:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 14 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• André Konsbruck → Audi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, doesn't appear he ever was mentioned there, and is currently not mentioned anywhere else, nor do I feel any mention is justified anywhere. This is a former article that was BLARed by David Gerard after removing some problematic sources. Looking at the last version of this [2] before the BLAR I don't think we should be restoring a BLP to a state where the only two "sources" are just photos. I definitely think delete. A7V2 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I concur - a redirect or article can be created as and when there's material - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 10 March 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. As a term with several usages which are better reflected in search results. While there was agreement that a disambiguation page was possible with limited entries, there was no support for a disambiguation page that covered the scope of the search results. Jay (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Brain Sucker → Resident Evil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unclear/vague redirect. Brainsuckers are enemies in Bloodborne for example. Should be deleted to allow the use of the search function. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. My first thought when seeing the title was the creatures from Futurama - List of Futurama characters#Brain slugs. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the search results: Mamlambo, List of Beetleborgs monsters#Brain Sucker, X-COM: Apocalypse monster, creature in King (2003 TV series), a novel in the Creepers series, a bonus track in 10 Years in Rage, redirect Brainsucker to this as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per User:AngusWOOF --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of the mentions AngusWOOF mentioned are WP:OR and unreferenced, perhaps unnecessary to be in the articles at all. I oppose this usage of WP:DABRELATED for that reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see sourcing issues with most of the proposed entries, but it's beside the point whether all entries are adequately sourced; what mattes is that there's enough of them (at least two) that are. Mamlambo has the statement, backed up with an inline citation, that the subject of that article is often referred to as "the Brain Sucker". List of Beetleborgs monsters has a well-defined subtopic (or rather, list entry) with about a paragraph of text dedicated to it, so that probably passes the threshold of meaningful content for inclusion on a dab page; the enry doesn't have an inline citation (don't know if it's supported by the general references). X-COM: Apocalypse and King (2003 TV series) both have a bit less content about entities with the name, though not just bare mentions, so inclusion is possible; neiher has an inline citation, but that's not required: MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Creepers series is a stub, but the Brain Suckers mentioned there is the title of one of the constituent volumes, so that's highly relevant to the article. 10 Years in Rage has only a bare mention, so this has less reason for inclusion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambig draft will help to see if there is support for disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's also the brain bug from Starship Troopers, with the meme "They sucked his brains out" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No good target and we shouldn't really be creating dabs when none of the entries are pages that have this as an alternate title. Letting the search results take over is the best option. Mlb96 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dabs disambiguate not ambiguous article titles, but ambiguous names for topics (see MOS:DABMENTION). – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate. There's adequate material for a disambiguation page (notwithstanding a gray zone), though deletion will also probably be acceptable as all the entities appear to be obscure and the search engine seems to handle navigation to them well enough. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a case where there is no topic/article that adequately identifies a subject by this name, and search results would be more useful than a disambiguation page, especially if additional articles unrelated to the ones mentioned thus far mention a subject by this name. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 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) eviolite (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukraine Is Not Yet Dead → Shche ne vmerla Ukrainy i slava, i volia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page was tagged as an implausible redirect and it is the translated title of a national anthem. I thought the editors at WP:RFD would be the best judges of whether it was indeed implausible. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While the target article translates the title as "The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished", "Ukraine has not yet perished" for short, this translation does see some currency, and the title-case capitalization is reasonable enough given that it's the title of a work. Thus, keep, and I'd say create those two redlinks as well as appropriate title-/sentence-case variants of all three. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• i tagged it... it is not accurate translation of the current title simply a misnomer. further the enter first page of google hits are from the last week indicating possible cito-genesis in the top hits—blindlynx 05:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Much of) the first page of Google hits is from the past few weeks because the whole world developed a great interest in Ukrainian politics and culture in the past few weeks. (I wonder why.) This isn't citogenesis, though. See this from October 2020, for instance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mean in general but specifically in terms of renewed interest and it having been the title of a wiki article for the better part of a day. In general it's just a miss-translation, and i don't think it qualifies as a common miss-translation outside of people seeing it on here in the last week—blindlynx 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common enough that a major academic institution used it for the name of a conference. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A quick Google (web and book) search reveal that the title is in common usage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a logical redirect and that translation is found regularly in English text long before the recent war. (A Google Scholar search turns up two pages of results, including an instance from 1936.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For reference, other redirects to the current target are Ukraine Is Not Yet Lost, Ukraine is not yet lost, Ukraine's glory hasn't perished, Ukraine's glory has not perished, and The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet died.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• S/b/:Ralston Bowles → Ralston Bowles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Another weird "s/b/:" one (see Special:Permalink/1076220363#s/b/:). If created today, this would be an A10. Jamie7687, in redirecting it, said this redirect should probably be deleted. Well, 16 years later, let's make that happen. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Graham87 14:35, 10 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• S/b/:Hydropolis → Hydropolis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is the result of a pagemove from a nonsensical title four minutes after the page was created in 2005. Sixteen years later, I do not think it serves any purpose. It gets some pageviews, but not enough to give cause to believe that any humans are deliberately navigating to this redirect. Given the existence of S/b/:Ralston Bowles as well, I asked Graham87 if he was aware of any old MediaWiki things that could explain how these two pages were created, and he was as stumped as me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC) c/e 14:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Graham87 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was the old name and after I moved the page, I kept it as a redirect as usual. It didn't serve a purpose other than the history but I agree to deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 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 moot: target has been restored as a dab page. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JCK (disambiguation) → JCK  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Target is no longer a DAB and nothing links here. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G14. I have tagged as such. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Explicit per G14. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved here (rather than doing this as a nested close) to avoid transclusion issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT This should not have been deleted. The disambiguation page was merely missing entries, such as for the airport. It was turned into a redirect without examining if the page was actually complete or not, by looking at redlinks existing on the page, just by assuming that the page was complete when it was not updated with all the other uses of JCK -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked for a WP:REFUND as JCK is again a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 07:48, 12 March 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.