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. Salvio ^giuliano 09:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wo Long: Final Dynasty → Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. "Final" is a typo or accidental misprint of "Fallen". Not mentioned in the article. Not commonly occurring typo per Google search results. Mika1h (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a believable search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd be interest in see what Czar, it's creator, has to say on it. He's not the type of editor to make stuff up. (Though it is possible it's just an "oops" too - I have no idea.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. It was direct from the press but looks like it's been mostly corrected since as a typo. I don't think it would be a big deal to delete or keep either way. czar 17:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that! Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible misspelling, per sources linked by Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Czar. We consistently underestimate the power of Wikipedia's contextual search bar. You can't see it right now because "Final Dynasty" still exists but when it's deleted, 'WL: Final Dynasty' will still autocomplete into the correct title by the proximity search feature. No need to leave all of these implausible alternatives lying around. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's plausible based on the source from Czar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plausible misspelling per Czar's rationale --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I get 5000+ Google search results. Pinging nom Mika1h for his Google search results. Jay 💬 05:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2027FIBA Basketball World Cup → FIBA Basketball World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unverifiable information. This doesn't seem a plausible redirect, either. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 18:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of the typo. However, as explained in the other RfD below, there's no problem with WP:CRYSTAL or WP:INDISCRIMINATE if all we have is a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spirule → Root locus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no target page where the topic is defined, except for an external link to an obscure programming language developed by a company of this name. In any case, very weakly related to the present target. D.Lazard (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The original claim is false: the topic was defined at the target of the redirect and the relationship could not be more direct. Only the sourcing was poor, which is now fixed, with citations to numerous textbooks explaining how to use the device. That's a 1948 spiral slide ruler invented by the very creator of the whole Root locus analysis technique. The original proposer could have done a quick search in Google Books before pushing the nuclear button. fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that the article is expanded with the term. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Closed due to being in the wrong venue, already at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foster and Partners. (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Foster and Partners → Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wikipedia's entry for Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank already covers this topic in more depth than this promotional, PR-whitewashed company page. As far as I can see there isn't enough scope to turn this subject into a decent page distinct from the BLP about its founder and chief. They are essentially, two sides of the same coin. I tried to merge the pages, but it was too hard. The Bicycle of Dreams (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If the article's data is correct, the firm has 1800 employees all over the world including 140 partners. It's also the largest architecture firm in the UK. The firm has an established notability that goes beyond its association with Norman Foster. Pichpich (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Wrong venue. Articles should be submitted at WP:AFD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nintendo DS & DSi Browser → Nintendo DS Browser  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete - I have since refactored the page to be about the DS browser only, as it originally was, since that is the only individually notable one. Information about the DSi browser is on a different page, making this redirect out of scope and unnecessary. The original move to this title was ill-conceived by a now-banned user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article had this title for nearly 13 years. I'm not sure I agree with the nominator that the "rationale for original move was faulty and against Wikipedia policy", and I don't see any issue discussing both in one article, but if the content is to stay removed then unless a better target exists this should be delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To better explain, the article was moved because "the browser works on DS and DSi". It was not actually meant to be about the DSi browser proper. This is not normal policy, because we go by the WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Nintendo DS Browser" for this particular piece of software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as {{R from move}} – The article had this name for 13 years as pointed out, and the topic is notable enough to expect that there would be external links that would get broken by the redirect being removed. WP:RFD#K4 applies. Randi Moth (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per WP:XY, and since the nominated redirect is not a {{R with history}}. The redirect Nintendo DSi Browser guides readers to where information about the "Nintendo DSi Browser" is located. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect has averaged over 2400 pageviews per day since the move. Deleting it would be harmful. - Eureka Lott 01:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per K4. EurekaLott has it right above, apart from that the stats link is faulty – this redirect averages a still extremely sizeable 30 a day. J947 † ^edits 06:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops! Thanks for catching that! - Eureka Lott 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:RFD#K4. Also, WP:XY doesn’t apply to this redirect since the DSi browser is mentioned in the lead. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Warrington Gillette → Friday the 13th Part 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect that was deleted in 2018 per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 20, but then got recreated in 2020 to the exact same target. It remains inappropriate, however, for an actor's name to redirect to just one specific film he was in -- Friday the 13th Part 2 was not the only acting credit Warrington Gillette ever had, so it's not appropriate to privilege that one specific film over any of the others. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per reasons given.★Trekker (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While he does have some other acting credits (6), Friday the 13th's Jason is unequivocally his most famous role. Given that he likely doesn't qualify for a page of his own, having his name redirect to his most well known gig seems the best compromise next to not having a link for him at all as if he doesn't exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to allow for uninhibited search and per the nom. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:33, 1 March 2023 (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, Jay 💬 15:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems bizarre to redirect a non-notable actor to just one of his roles. If he's gotten a "most famous role" that is "his most well known gig", either that's still not particularly significant, and we can delete this for the provided reason, or he really qualifies for WP:BIO, and this ought to be deleted to encourage creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was a procedural close. Made into an article by User:BD2412, and this is therefore moot. Starting discussion at AFD... (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour → Aerosmith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an WP:XY issue. They are both billed co-headliners. There might be the probable cause of WP:PTOPIC or WP:REDYES on BLAR-ing the joint co-headlining tour. I would suggest restore the article and send to AFD as QuietHere states that, "co-headlining concert tours won't survive long at AFD". There are three/four BLAR-turned into restored pre-BLARs to ultimately deleted ones that is resulted in an outcome. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:34F4:792E:B1E7:2AB0 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Create an article at this title. Based on the content in the Aerosmith article, this was a crazy tour, with numerous injuries. A separate article could contain additional information of interest, such as the tour dates (and which of those were postponed/cancelled due to the continuing tour mishaps). I would hazzard that these will be easy to source, as cancelled tour dates from a major band make the news in the cancelled cities. BD2412 T 15:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone ahead and restored the content previously boldly redirected without discussion, and added the references. BD2412 T 15:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Nontrinitarianism. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unipersonalist → Unitarian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Unipersonalism → Unitarian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not mention in target article and a Google search tells me that a unipersonalist believes in a unipersonal deity (Merriam-Webster), and is not synonymous with Unitarianism. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not personally familiar with unipersonalism but that definition makes it sound like a synonym for nontrinitarianism, a belief which Unitarians have but they aren't necessarily the only ones who do. Retarget to nontrinitarianism. QuietHere (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, do you intend to make a separate article for Unipersonalist / Unipersonalism? Because in the absence of such an article, the redirect is pointing to the best place. Certainly the difference between the two concepts is minor, hinging on whether you think God is a "person". jej1997 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. This could refer to multiple positions within the context of Christianity. The standard trinitarian formula is "One God, three persons." A unipersonalist believes that God is one person. This could mean rejecting that Jesus was divine, which is Unitarianism (historically Arianism), or believing that he became divine but was not, to borrow trinitarian language, "true God" (Adoptionism). It could also refer to the belief that Father and Son are different aspects of the same person (Modalism). In addition to all of these Christian uses, the term would apply to "true" monotheism (i.e., Judaism and Islam). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Unipersonalism. Also, a disambiguation draft may help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to nontrinitarianism. "Unipersonalism" is equivalent to the general concept of "Unitarianism", but because that term tends to be much more specific than the general concept (you won't find Jehovah's Witnesses describing themselves as "Unitarian", for example), we need to redirect to a different term that refers only to the general concept. (Think of this like politics: labour issues in politics aren't necessarily tied to the politics of a Labour Party, some conservatives disagree with a Conservative Party, socialists won't necessarily join a Socialist Party, etc., and in the same way, not all unitarians are associated with Unitarianism.) Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to nontrinitarianism, per Nyttend and also taking into account that said page already does a rather effective job of enumerating and discussing the disambiguation of use-cases identified by Compassionate727. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep both. The console was croudfunded and announced in 2018, and had a scheduled release date in 2019. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Atari VCS (2018 console) → Atari VCS (2021 console)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Atari VCS (2019 console) → Atari VCS (2021 console)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not released in 2018 nor 2019. So, I suggest deletion. 176.88.80.31 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Atari VCS (2019 console) since 2019 was initially given as a release date for this, and per WP:RfD#K4. Weak keep Atari VCS (2018 console) per WP:RfD#K4. A7V2 (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The original release date for the console was 2019. Many people might not know that this console was released in 2021 since this console is pretty uncommon and unpopular. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For another opinion on the 2018 entry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. After two relists and extensive discussion, editors remain divided between keep and delete. Keep !votes based on {{R from person}} and delete !votes arguing that the redirect is not helpful to readers are both roughly equally valid, so I don't see a policy basis for discounting either side's perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kristen Cui → Knock at the Cabin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I suggest the redirect be deleted because it is being used only on the page it redirects back without giving any information about the person it refers to. It doesn't make any sense. Plus once we have more information about the said child actor, it can be used to create a named page later on. But right now, the redirect can be done away with. Navjot Singh (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I corrected the syntax of the nomination which did involve removing some text which isn't exactly duplicated above, but is very similar. Skynxnex (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it seems reasonable to redirect the name of an actor known only for one film to the article about the film. The target does mention the subject and it's a plausible search term. Hut 8.5 18:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The existence of this bluelink creates the false impression that an article exists. Similar bluelinks are listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22#Dick Wieand as well as at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22#Dick Wiend. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a classic {{R from person}}. The reader comes searching for information en.wp has on Kristen Cui and leaves with just that. J947 † ^edits 10:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roman Spinner, and since not much information is given at the target, other than the name of the character that the child actor plays in the film. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may be noted that the two redirects mentioned in my "Delete" vote above — Dick Wieand → Friday the 13th: A New Beginning and Dick Wieand → Friday the 13th: A New Beginning have been both deleted. Actor Dick Wiend and Dick Wieand (same person) has no Wikipedia entry and his supporting role in Friday the 13th did not result in the film's article mentioning him in any way other than including his name in the film's cast list.
  Likewise here, Kristen Cui is not mentioned in any way within her film's Wikipedia entry, other than her name appearing in the film's cast list, as pointed out in the "Delete" vote by CycloneYoris, above. Here is IMDb's list of the 24 cast members billed in the end credits of Knock at the Cabin. Six of those billed cast members have Wikipedia articles. Should we then create bluelink redirects for the remaining 18 cast members, such as Kristen Cui, so that all of those links flow to Knock at the Cabin?
  Taking a wider view, Wikipedia has thousands of film articles in which cast members who do not have Wikipedia entries are left unlinked or as redlinks. Should we then create thousands of redirects for actors without articles so that all those redirects flow to one of the films in which such actors appear?
  Otherwise, why would we make an exception for this cast member by keeping this redirect when we do not keep other such redirects? Certainly, WP:RECENT is not sufficient to warrant such an exception. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I. precedent is generally not accepted at RfD; at least insofar that individual results vary widely from any norm. Anyway, this instance is different in that, unlike with Wiend, Cui has a clear primary target on en.wp and therefore a direct redirect is more helpful than search results.
    II. Yes. A redirect here is more helpful than search results.
    III. Except where there is no clear target, yes. J947 † ^edits 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Precedent is indeed accepted at RfD as well as at other Wikipedia venues and Cui is exactly the same as Wieand. Both appear in the cast list of Wikipedia entries for their respective films and both have no Wikipedia entry as of this writing. Therefore, by definition, neither should have had a bluelink which gave the false impression that a Wikipedia article existed delineating the bluelinked subject. That has always been the accepted procedure and if a user finds any other actor name which redirects to a film, such a redirect should be submitted here for deletion.

    The same procedure also applies to film titles that have no Wikipedia entries, but are nonetheless redirected to their directors' or actors' entries. An example was recently found at Oh, Baby! (2020 film), which redirects to the entry for its director Kate Morgan Chadwick, thus giving the false impression that it has a Wikipedia entry. This redirect will be likewise submitted here for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that there exist no mainspace links to Cui, it won't mislead readers. In terms of the other point, is it needed to repeat that unlike with Wiend, Cui has a clear primary target on en.wp? It's a normal opinion to support deleting Wieand but not Cui.

    In fact, I reckon I can show you many instances of very similar redirects listed (a few months apart or something like that) to result in wildly different outcomes here at RfD. Therefore precedent is that precedent is not a trump card. J947 † ^edits 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If by "clear primary target", it is understood to mean that Cui has only a single film credit, while Wieand has several film credits, it is still unclear how a performer with a single film credit should have a redirect flowing to that film credit, while a performer with several film credits should not have a redirect at all.

    The main point is that creating redirects for actors who do not have Wikipedia articles, whether they have one credit or a hundred credits, only creates redirect clutter. As previously mentioned, eighteen Knock at the Cabin credited cast members, including Cui, have no Wikipedia articles and it is counterintuitive to single out Cui as a redirect subject, while leaving out the others.

    At the very least, if Wikipedia's Knock at the Cabin article was a lengthy examination of the film's casting process which discussed the actors in question, an argument could have been made that the redirects of cast members' names to the film's Wikipedia entry provided some major or even minor details about their personalities. However, the article in its current incarnation does not provide any such information, thus undercutting justification for the creation of these types of redirects. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is my opinion that a redirect is a better solution than leaving readers on an unhelpful "this article does not exist" landing page or a list of search results. Simple as that. J947 † ^edits 19:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it is as simple as that, the simple fact is that Wikipedia blue links are expected to flow towards existing Wikipedia articles or alternative titles for such articles. Exceptions are made for substantial content within larger articles, such as titles of TV episodes that flow towards articles about series that list each episode and provide a brief synopsis and cast list. Another example would be an article about an event, such as one of the "Murder of..." articles, that provides biographical sketches of the victim and the perpetrator. A mere mention of a name within an article is insufficient for creation of a bluelink simply because it offers no detail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It might bear repeating that there is no mainspace blue link to this person, and as long as this redirect exists in such a manner there shouldn't be one. The rest of your comment – well I completely disagree, and so do the guidelines at Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. J947 † ^edits 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It might also bear pointing out that anyone is free to create a mainspace biographical entry for Kristen Cui and then create legitimate redirects, such as Kristin Cui, Cristin Cui or Kristen Kui. However, a redirect which points to an entry that contains no information about the subject of the redirect is not a legitimate redirect per the very same Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons — "10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Of course, there is also the likelihood that if a biographical entry for Kristen Cui were to be created, it would be submitted for deletion at WP:AfD per WP:NOTABILITY. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, there is also the likelihood that if a biographical entry for Kristen Cui were to be created, it would be submitted for deletion at WP:AfD per WP:NOTABILITY: i.e., by a reasonable interpretation the redirect cannot plausibly be expanded into an article. Either way, that's overruled by RHARMFUL ([...] consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones) and K5. J947 † ^edits 04:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This nomination is focused upon the argument that if Kristen Cui is currently insufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia entry, she is likewise insufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia redirect, which is indeed a recent one, having been created only seven weeks ago, on February 2, 2023. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course it's a recent(ish) redirect me dumb. Anyway, the point is that this redirect existing is more helpful to the reader than it not, and nothing that you have said has remotely convinced me the other way. J947 † ^edits 04:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    But the whole point of this deletion discussion is that redirects should not be created if "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject", as in the case in Kristen Cui redirecting to Knock at the Cabin, which provides no help to the reader. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    But it does provide help to the reader. As it stands, this redirect tells them precisely two things: Kristen Cui is known for acting in the film Knock at the Cabin, and in the film she played Wen. If this redirect is deleted, the reader can figure out the same two things, but it's a slower process with higher potential for error. J947 † ^edits 06:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    By that standard, since Kristen Cui's name in the film's credits is followed by McKenna Kerrigan, Ian Merrill Peakes, Denise Nakano, Rose Luardo, Bill Vargus (actor), Satomi Hofmann, Kevin Leung, Lee Avant, Odera Adimorah, Kat Murphy and Kittson O'Neill, to name but ten among the many redlinked names that could be created as bluelinked redirects to Knock at the Cabin, thus causing Wikipedia to be potentially littered with thousands of such uninformative redirects from various films and other topics (the one bluelinked name above — Denise Nakano — is a redirect not to Knock at the Cabin, but to an article where she is apparently not even mentioned, which indicates that her redirect should likewise be submitted for deletion, rather than converted into a redirect to Knock at the Cabin). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, creating those redirects would be helpful as I said before. It's more informative than search results. Not a massive priority, but hardly something which should be deleted. J947 † ^edits 09:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Salvio ^giuliano 09:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tupac (rapper) → Tupac Shakur  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

We have Tupac redirecting to Tupac Shakur, suggest deleting. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? What's the problem? This is never going to be deleted unless you, or someone else, provides a good reason. Nyttend (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It needs to be deleted since Tupac redirects to Tupac Shakur. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:CHEAP: the redirect is plausible enough. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. J947 † ^edits 10:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947, considering Tupac redirects to Tupac Shakur and since the target subject is frequently referred to by their first name as a mononym. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above me. This may be unnecessary disambiguation, but it's descriptive, unambiguous, not harming things around here, potentially helpful, and furthermore, Tupac is frequently called just that. I don't really see a reason why this redirect needs to go. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Until March 2016, Tupac (name) was at Tupac so this redirect makes sense given that for a long period of time Tupac did not go to Tupac Shakur also as stated above, it's a WP:CHEAP redirect. TartarTorte 16:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947 --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What? I don’t understand the reason for deletion. I’ll just cite WP:CHEAP and get this over with. I’ll also throw a snowball in there too. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ron Allen (actor) → Kirk Thornton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The paranthecal (actor) does not help disambugate, I suggest retargeting to Ronald Allen. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Kirk Thornton has been created as Ron Allen based on sources in the article, but Ronald Allen is also an actor. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But Thornton is only a voice actor. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Bow Wow (singer) and WP:CHEAP. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I’ll expand my reasoning as I didn’t really have a lot of time to write my reasoning. As said per below, Ronald Allen doesn’t really go by the name of Ron Allen. I argue that a voice actor/voice actress is more of a sub type of a actor/actress, which is why I had linked another RFD that is similar to this one. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ron Allen (actor) as a redirect to Kirk Thornton, per Pizzaplayer219, above. Since Kirk Thornton has been occasionally credited as "Ron Allen", it would be appropriate to use this alternative stage name in Wikipedia entries delineating projects in which he is billed as "Ron Allen". Also, there is no indication that English actor Ronald Allen was ever credited as "Ron Allen" or that he ever used "Ron Allen" as an alternative stage name. In any case, hatnotes to the Ronald Allen (disambiguation) page resolve any confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how about we get the redirect Deleted then? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think you read any of that. He voted to Keep this redirect, not delete it. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Template:Do not move to Commons. Salvio ^giuliano 09:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NoCommons → Template:Keep local  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I feel like this title might be better pointed to the {{Do not move to commons}} template than the {{Keep local}} template. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to title suggested by nom. Redirecting this title to keep local makes no sense, as it's already been moved to Commons, why name this redirect "NoCommons" in that case? Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 03:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this really ought to be bundled with {{Nocommons}}, which also redirects to {{Keep local}}. I created this redirect as a logical capitalisation variant of Nocommons, and I can't imagine why we'd want them to redirect to different places. Nyttend (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 09:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2027 FIBA Basketball World Cup → FIBA Basketball World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:CRYSTAL. Just like we don't have a redirect from the 2044 Summer Olympics to Olympic Games, we shouldn't have this. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. There's no CRYSTAL issue if all we have is a redirect and redirects are cheap. Pichpich (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The redirect is misleading in that its existence suggests that Wikipedia contains information on the 2027 world cup, while it does not. Randi Moth (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randi Moth. Misleading and unnecessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry Colley (died 1700) → Henry Colley (died 1719)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect title contains incorrect information about the subject (actual death year was 1719) DeemDeem52 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From April 2010‎ to June 2022, the article was called "Henry Colley (died 1700)" and it was moved at the start of July in 2022. Per the history, Pwaldron moved page Henry Colley (died 1700) to Henry Colley (died 1719): Year of death is wrong; about to add sources to confirm. So "(died 1700)" is incorrect. However, even with the move there has been a decent amount of use. Since the creation of the redirect, it has been used over 3,000 times and excluding September 2022, it has been used over 2,100 times. (For some unclear reason, there was a significant increase in usage of the redirect starting on September 8th and continuing though almost the rest of the month.) Given the usage, I would say that it should be kept with a redirect template added to it to make it clearer that it is in use due to the mistake. (Template:R from incorrect disambiguation?) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Super Goku V. When an article's had a certain title for a very long time (in this case, the majority of Wikipedia's history), the old title pretty much always should be retained. This isn't a case of retaining a created-by-pagemove-vandalism redirect, which is unlikely ever to be used. To the contrary, it presumably has hundreds or thousands of incoming links from Wikipedia alone — for example, in the history of Richard Wesley, 1st Baron Mornington (his son), [1] and [2] both link to this redirect, as (presumably) do all 129 page revisions between them. {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is indeed the correct way to handle this. Nyttend (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. J947 † ^edits 10:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; Template:R from incorrect disambiguation seems a better way to handle the redirect than to delete it. I'll withdraw my nomination. DeemDeem52 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).