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 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2032 United States presidential election → United States presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Pointing to the generic article isn't useful for anyone searching as it doesn't include any information about the 2032 election.

The 2028 equivalent was deleted a while ago for being premature and salted until after the 2024 election. Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 23:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and per the precedent deletion of 2028 United States presidential election. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xeque mate → Checkmate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

per WP:RLANG harrz ^talk 21:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Excluir as per nom. (That means Delete for anyone who doesn't speak Portuguese, which is apparently what Xeque is from) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the literal translation is actually "exclude", but no one here cares about those technicalities

  still, deletar per that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're saying that Google Translate would lie to me!? Gaaaaasp Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  portuguese is one of those words it absolutely can't translate properly for whatever reason (totally not related to how informal the language is)

  it's not as bad as japanese or russian, but it's still very very bad

  wait, why am i defending this godawful mess of a language anyway? people should just think that brazil and portugal speak spanish cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. Target concept has affinity to no particular language. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above/WP:RLANG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Niclas Wahlgren → Melodifestivalen 2006  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think this redirect should be deleted as the target page has minimal mentions to the subject (just a couple of name mentions) and subsequently is not helpful to anyone seeking information about the subject. Moreover the target page is just about a competition the subject took part in once. Not directly related to the subject. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While it seems the current target is the closest we can get in terms of relevance, that speaks more to the lack of notability of the subject. Grk1011 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this appears to be the most likely target for a redirect, however given the minimal coverage of the subject at the target the individual likely does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBLP enough to even warrant the redirect. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Korean Chinese. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chaoxianzu Koreans → Koreans in China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Chaoxianzu. This redirect was created before the Chaoxianzu article was created, however the redirect refers to simply another name for Chaoxianzu. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 05:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chaoxianzu now redirects to Korean Chinese so retarget there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the current target and proposed target (Korean Chinese).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Korean Chinese as Shhhnotsoloud suggests. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Korean Chinese as per Shhhnotsoloud, in order to avoid a WP:2R situation. Noteably, Korean Chinese does have a hatnote that leads right to the current target of Koreans in China. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve Green (runner) → Stephen Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Steven Green (runner) → Stephen Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Stephen Green (runner) → Stephen Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. No runner is listed on the disambiguation page. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. A quick google suggests he's notable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per REDLINK. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the original purpose of this was to channel ambiguous links to the disambiguation page. Steve Green (Jamaican runner), Steve Green (British runner), Steve Green (British sprinter), and Steven Green (athlete) are four separate notable runners who have competed at major championships but don't have articles yet and all the links were gathering together at Steve Green (athlete) and Steve Green (runner). The redirects assist with proper disambiguation in the absence of articles. I've noted the runners on the disambiguation page now. SFB 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, SFB. It does appear that all of these runners satisfy MOS:DABMENTION at a minimum, and so are appropriate for inclusion on the disambiguation page. Accordingly, I withdraw this proposal. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2014 Lok Sabha Elections → 2014 Indian general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect 2014 Lok Sabha elections also exists, and search results are not case sensitive. Delete this particular of the two to maintain consistency with redirects of other Indian elections. Did not find specific category in CSD, or else it was quick delete. Keep- ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Another redirect existing is not a valid deletion rationale. We can have 2014 Lok Sabha elections and 2014 Lok Sabha Elections, which both redirect to the same place, without it being an issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ExclusiveEditor: Please note, there is no valid CSD rational for these types of redirects. Nothing about this redirect makes it CSD eligible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rational behind such pages, they are just redundancies, serving no purpose. For examples, we have CSD criterion 'implausible typo or misnomer' which mostly is because redirects should not be created just because they could be created. So here, as per me at least, just changing small-case 'e' to capital 'E' serves no purpose, as people searching both shall redirect to same page as per rational mentioned in original request. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@ExclusiveEditor: WP:CSD R3 would not apply to a redirects that are title case instead of sentence case. CSD R3 does not apply to just "this shouldn't exist" type redirects, it applies to redirects in which you'd say "nobody in their right mind would think this is a reasonable search term". Redirects which one deems to be redundant or excessive are not eligible because they're not implausible typos or misnomers. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please strike the bolded delete part of your comment at the beginning of your comment here @ExclusiveEditor. You've already stated in your nomination that your vote is to delete and this is casting a vote twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Yes, I don't have any issue regarding this, and recognize CSD R3 as separate issue (solver). I am just trying to put my comment. Maybe I should put it below. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see the rational behind this page, just a redundancy, serving no purpose. For examples, we have CSD criterion 'implausible typo or misnomer' (which I know is not applicable here) which mostly is because redirects should not be created just because they could be created. So here, as per me at least, just changing small-case 'e' to capital 'E' serves no purpose, as people searching both shall redirect to same page as per rational mentioned in original request. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's very plausible for people to search using title case (and some methods of navigating Wikipedia are case sensitive) and no other valid reason to delete has been articulated - "Redundancy" is never a reason to delete a redirect. I've marked it as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of the sentence case title. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hey man im josh and Thryduulf. No reason to delete this. A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The edit summaries make it clear this was created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leilani s → Leilani Sen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Was at this mistaken title for under a minute, unlikely search term. Rusalkii (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Urban Dictionary#Content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability of Urban Dictionary → Urban Dictionary#Usage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Nothing in this article is about the website's reliability. Neither was there anything about it when this redirect was made. I suppose someone could use the information in § Quality control to from their own opinion about the website's reliability, but that doesn't seem like enough to warrant this redirect. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Unz, where reliability of this website is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is in the context of Wikipedia though and is not part of a properly soured article, so I don't think we should target it from the main namespace. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It gets the reader to the relevant information. The content section doesn't discuss reliability per se, as you note in your nomination. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose creation of an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Urban Dictionary#Content which contains the information that allows someone to judge for themselves the site's reliability. I oppose a cross-namespace redirect as someone using this search term is far more likely looking for encyclopaedic content, which we have, not internal project discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose creation of cross-namespace redirect, as per Shhhnotsoloud, Thryduulf, and CopperyMarrow15. Retarget to Urban Dictionary#Content or Urban Dictionary#Quality control instead, again, as per Thryduulf. (I'll note that on the one hand, Quality Control has the MOST relevant information on the matter, but on the other hand, it's the very first direct subsection of Content. I could go either way.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ageism against Joe Biden → Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Hangover over from merge. Redirect is a non-neutral term that isn't a common or reliably sourced term that would warrant protection. Move to delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There doesn't appear to be any significant precedent for retention of significantly POV-named redirects like this. Please note that I come to this discussion after reviewing edits to the redirect by a non-blocked DE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but mark as Non-Neutral. As per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects don't necessarily need to be neutral, because they're less visible to readers. I can see someone searching for this term rather easily, especially if they themselves hold the POV espoused by the non-neutral terminology. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. [1] ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lunamann. This seems like a pretty plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plausible search term and the non-neutral tag ameliorates neutrality concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lunamann and Voorts. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lunamann and voorts. This kind of situation is exactly what the non-neutral redirect category is for. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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