Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4: Difference between revisions

< May 3

May 5 >

May 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2025.

Niggerz

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nomination created by blocked sock. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Niggerz → Nigger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused useless redirect. Completely unnecessary. TzarN64 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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).

Historic Palestine

• Historic Palestine → Palestine (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Historic Palestine – retarget to Palestine (disambiguation)

Following this discussion, the page was redirected to the disambiguation page over the argument that the term might refer to Mandatory Palestine. Well, see the opening at Palestine (region): history starts long before 1920. Retarget to Palestine (region). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep for the exact same reason it was retargetted here in the last discussion: The term may refer to either topic on the disambiguation page with neither being the clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  You’re missing the point. “Historic Palestine” never refers to Mandatory Palestine per se, nor is the latter term antithetical to the simple wording “Palestine”. Mandatory Palestine is only the final polity to exist in the region of Palestine, or “historic Palestine”, before the establishment of Israel. In other terms, “historic Palestine” refers to the region throughout the centuries, not to a specific point in time. Therefore, it should redirect to Palestine (region), as the lead section of this article clearly shows. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf. It's not explained why Historic Palestine would not refer to Mandatory Palestine, that seems like a very plausible target for this and just as much so as the region and its older history. Neither meaning is primary so keeping as a disambiguation is best.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  See my reply to the above vote. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Based on my searches, this mainly appears to be a vaguely-defined geographic term. I'm not seeing any sources that specifically refer to the polity of Mandatory Palestine using this phrase. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom and Presidentman 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to History of Palestine, which covers Palestine historically (including the mandate!). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  ...I removed the mandate template from this page as apparently improperly used when on non-article talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to History of Palestine per Tavix, as well as the redirect being the closest title match to that target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current target, History of Palestine, or Palestine (region)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

MOGAI and others

• MOGAI → LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Commonly used queer acronyms → LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Commonly Used Queer Acronyms and their Meanings → LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MVPFAFF+ → LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• MVPFAFF → LGBTQ people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget back to LGBTQ (term) or List of LGBTQ acronyms? --MikutoH ^talk! 02:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget MVPFAFF and MVPFAFF+ to LGBTQ (term)#MVPFAFF, where the term is defined. Retarget the remaining to List of LGBTQ acronyms. This list seems like the best target for the two more generic redirects, and MOGAI is also mentioned there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting that MOGAI may be gaining sufficient references to be considered notable and qualify for an article rather than a redirect. Taylor & Francis has two books by different authors or editors discussing this term, The Great Pronoun Shift: The Big Impact of Little Parts of Speech, By Helene Seltzer Krauthamer, 2021, and Queer Technologies: Affordances, Affect, Ambivalence, edited by Adrienne Shaw and Katherine Sender, 2017. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC) (Edited Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggested targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Breeing

• Breeing → Screaming (music)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere in our articles (apart from the Bree disambiguation page); web search does not seem to show anything relevant. The page was hosting an unsourced article before being redirected. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Revert without prejudice to AfD. I'm seeing enough relevant hits in unreliable sources that the former article seem likely to be verifiable by someone who knows where to look to find relevant reliable sources. Such people are very much more likely to be aware of an AfD (and thus that reliable sources need to be found) than they are an RfD. Google insists that I most likely mean "brewing" and most of the hits are typos for "breeding" but it would not be a useful redirect to either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert and AfD Yeah, this seems like an obvious outcome. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• delete. it was an unsourced stub before, so if anyone wants it up, recreation would be a better option. can't think of any fitting targets for a redirect either consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Being sourced is not a speedy deletion reason and whether a stub or redlink is better is a matter of opinion. The article content has not been discussed at an appropriate forum and deletion here would be contrary to the consensus of the recent discussions regarding BLARs. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Consarn is not advocating for deletion via WP:CSD, so whether or not it's a speedy deletion reason is irrelevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

...this again? if it needs to be from my mouth, i'm not voting to speedy delete. if i was, i would've said so consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Consarn, but as always I'm willing to change my !vote if someone is able to provide evidence of notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, repeated consensuses have determined that RfD is not an appropriate venue for determining notability or similar of pre-BLAR content. Deletion at RfD is accordingly an abuse of process and entirely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Per the opening sentence of WP:RFD: Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. There are no exceptions listed, including for redirects with history. This is a potentially problematic redirect, so the place to discuss it is RfD. For another policy, let's examine WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You are advocating to restore an unsourced article, so you need to support the content with a source. It is a violation of policy to restore it otherwise. (I'll also ping Someone-123-321 with this request because they think it's an obvious outcome.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to rehash the arguments here when we've spent multiple months debating them in multiple locations with wider audiences with the outcome every single time that no, RfD is not the appropriate location to debate the suitability of article content just because it was BLARed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I note that you are still unable to come up with any evidence to support this article. I also note that this is not a WP:BLAR situation—which requires an editor to disagree with the blanking-and-redirecting by reverting this action. For example: this was redirected back in 2008 and no one at the time objected to the redirection. If someone were to do so then, the proper procedure as outlined there would be to then take the restored article to AfD. But we're long past that point. Instead, the issue brought before us is an issue with the redirect, namely that it is not mentioned anywhere in our articles (apart from the Bree disambiguation page); web search does not seem to show anything relevant. That's a question that RfD is more suited to handle, so AfD is not the correct venue for it. Of course, if you are able to find sourcing that would support an article on the subject, then WP:BURDEN would be satisfied and I would be okay with a restoration. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I refuse to engage further with your attempts to subvert community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not subverting community consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly explained how you are doing exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Similar cases have happened before where articles get turned into inappropiate redirects just to avoid WP:AFD User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  That does not make that or this action appropriate. When something is redirected to an inappropriate location explicitly to avoid AfD, then that's all the more reason to send it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm concerned this disagreement (about disagreement) between trusted editors I respect is going sideways, and I'm having difficulty fully understanding why sysops with a combined admin tenure of 29 years can't find some resolution on what we each consider an important issue for Wikipedia. Today I ask both of you to cease your fire in this space, knowing you have every reason (and agency) to choose not to honor my request. I'm wondering whether we should work somewhere more private to hammer out an RFC wording which will help us streamline this apparent inconguity in our community understanding of written policy and guidance. If it's an actual issue between two trusted sysops, it must be a real problem for less experienced, less tolerant people. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  We had an RFC very recently Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#RfC: Amending ATD-R (which confirmed the results of 2018 and 2021 RFCs that when a BLAR is contested the preferred venue for discussion is AfD* with the talk page as a second option) which followed on from Wikipedia talk:Redirect#on interpretations of the blar section and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Amending ATD-R.

  While we haven't had an explicit RfD about whether RfD is ever an appropriate discussion venue for article content replaced by redirects without consensus, I cannot imagine any logic by which it isn't for BLARs that are contested in one manner but is for BLARs that are contested in a different manner. *well, technically "the appropriate deletion venue for the pre-redirect content" but in practice that is almost always AfD (as it is in this case). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I respect you both, but we're all guilty of failing imagination from time to time. It's precisely why you two are in disagreement. If the previous discussions didn't nail down this specific issue, then we need to calibrate that ending (as opposed to witnessing two of our best admins duking it out in talk space, an ugly and unworthy display). BusterD (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  That discussion has no relevance to this issue, as the closer explicitly stated: This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  admittedly, this is kind of unrelated to the discussion. an article being improperly blar'd to avoid afd isn't really directly tied to it ending up in rfd. case in point, this one was an unsourced stub, and last i saw, unsourced stubs can get deleted here without issue consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Top options at this time are "delete" and "revert and send to AfD"...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

ever on and on, we continue circling around in a carousel of agony... consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I generally agree that old BLARs that appear at Rfd that are not good redirects should be restored and addressed at Afd. However, I also see that in some cases, it is clearly undesirable to restore the blanked content, even for a week during an Afd discussion. Here, I can find nothing online in support of WP:VERIFY; of course WP:RS extend to other media, but the lack of anything apparent online suggests at least a lack of notability. Again, this is supposed to be determined at Afd, but I find there is not a very good chance this gets kept at Afd, so delete here per WP:SNOWBALL. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether RfD is an appropriate venue for the expression of deletion opinions or not, 3-2 is unarguably not SNOWBALL territory. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe you necessarily oppose deletion, you just oppose deletion here. My invocation of WP:SNOWBALL applies to what would happen at Afd, not here. I do not strongly oppose going to Afd, especially if there is a genuine question whether this would be deleted there, but restoring a poor article just so it can be deleted is a WP:NOTBURO weakness in that view of proper procedure. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

When there are five comments, 3 of which support deletion and two of which do not support deletion, there is no justification for a SNOWBALL close as delete (or as anything else for that matter), even if that's what your crystal ball says would happen at AfD, and even if you believe NOTBURO is a justification for deletion (it isn't, but that's another matter). Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

say this goes to afd. would you, then, support keeping there? that's the big question here, and i really can't see you supporting a completely unsourced stub in afd

i also found nothing by the way, give or take one article about echidnas that was clearly a minor spelling mistae consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether I would support keeping at AfD, that's completely irrelevant to the point here about snowballs. You absolutely cannot presume that someone who has explicitly supported something other than deletion would support deletion in a different venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah, the snowball thing is kind of a weird one, even i disagree with it, if only due to 3 votes not really being enough to warrant that. hence my comment being about something else (in this case, what you'd vote for in afd), to which i need to ask what sources you found that weren't just typos, since i still only found one (and it was a typo), and i really don't think you wouldn't know what you want done with something if you checked it (in this case, to see that it was an unsourced stub) and looked for sources yourself consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL says If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.. Is/does anyone here really doubt this would be deleted at Afd? If not, there is no reason to go through the process. If there is genuine doubt, then yes, we should send it to Afd if there is consensus there is no good redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See my very first comment I'm seeing enough relevant hits in unreliable sources that the former article seem likely to be verifiable by someone who knows where to look to find relevant reliable sources.. I don't think deletion at AfD is guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

if you found stuff, even in seemingly unreliable sources, please show it. this isn't the first time you mention having gotten results and just leave it at that, and i'm honestly unwilling to believe that you did this time, because three other people so far (other from your perspective, that is, because i'm one of them) found nothing. and if no one else has been able to get results here, what hope do you think people in afd would have without it turning to assuming that people here are somehow less competent? more importantly, do you think the possibility of sources existing warrants taking a clearly problematic stub back to mainspace for even a week, as opposed to just recreating it (in draftspace or even under this redirect)? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (for some you might need to search within the page, the first is a facebook link I don't know if it will work for those without an account). I found those in less than a minute using the search string "breeing" music -wikipedia -brewing (the last element because Google insists it's a typo for that and shows results for "brewing" rather than "breeing" even without typos). As noted these are all unreliable sources, but the presence of so many relevant sources in unreliable sources is an indicator that it is plausible reliable sources exist. I haven't shared these before because nobody has asked to see them before, and previously in similar RfDs it good faith has always been assumed that if someone says they have found sources that they have actually found them. Particularly because the specific sources are commonly not relevant at RfD - AfD is the place sources are evaluated for reliability and notability.

more importantly, do you think the possibility of sources existing warrants taking a clearly problematic stub back to mainspace for even a week, Yes. For reasons I've explained ad nauseum this is article content that was contributed in apparent good faith and about which no consensus discussion has taken place in a venue appropriate for the discussion of article content. Per the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, article content is not deleted unless (a) it meets a speedy deletion criterion, (b) there is consensus to delete it after a discussion at AfD, or (c) it is properly PRODed and receives no objections. None of those apply here. I know nothing about this topic, and very little about the wider music genre(s?) in which this occurs so I don't know what sources are likely to have covered this if it is notable and the people who do know such things are extremely unlikely to know that this discussion exists at RfD (because why would it? RfD isn't where the notability of article content is discussed). Listing it at AfD, partly by design and partly because of the way things have evolved naturally around AfDs, will maximise the chances of those people being aware of the discussion and thus of the need to find sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

a little late to note because i fell asleep was extremely busy with important yet conveniently indeterminate work, but... well, i have two things to note about the results (regardless of reliability), and i guess i'll start with the less negative and confusing one

• nice-a. that's at the very least proof that the term wasn't made up
• while i did do a mostly identical search (i didn't include "-wikipedia" because i generally just ignore wp results and move on lol), it gave me nothing besides that one thing i mentioned (that was still a typo) then and nothing now... but specifying that i wanted results from before this page was created gave me exactly two results (result 1, result 2, nice coincidence with result 1, what the fuck is result 2). doing an actually identical search gave me the same results in both cases (yes, both meanings of "result"). i'm still 99% sure google just hates me lmao, but why other people also got nothing if results do exist is beyond me

the important part aside, this seems to be one of those cases where i have to point at that one discussion again, as proof that people in rfd can, in fact, judge article content and come to the conclusion that an unsourced stub is not worth taking back to mainspace, especially if nothing reliable can be found, and then rip tavix off and mention that the rfc's closure deliberately didn't make any statements about whether or not rfd is appropriate for blars, which would put the assumption that it isn't somewhere between possible interpretation and misinterpretation

just because rfd is made for discussing redirects, doesn't mean that any single aspect of any given discussion has to be limited to only that. article content is removed over stuff in rfd (someone doesn't find a source, they remove an unsourced mention, the redirect is deleted), article content is added over stuff in rfd (someone finds a source, they add a mention with it, the redirect is kept or retargeted), and sometimes articles are created over stuff in rfd (self-explanatory, i think). a rigid "rfd is only for redirects" mentality not only causes more, needless headaches, but is actively reductive towards why redirects exist, and waving at the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" doesn't work when i can just as easily wave at pillar 5 (assuming the principles even cover oddly specific cases like this) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That one previous discussion got things seriously wrong does not mean we need to get things seriously wrong again. As for pillar 5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording is exactly what is at stake here: The principle and sprit that article content (which doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria) is not deleted without a consensus at an appropriate venue that people have the opportunity to know is happening. For the reasons I keep explaining that does not and cannot happen at RfD. Edits to articles are not relevant here, because that is normal article editing and shows up on watchlists, etc. it is not deletion (there is a reason admins get desysopped for deleting pages out of process). Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

first i hear of the possibility of an admin being demoted over this, should someone tell legoktm (see that discussion again), patar knight (and by extension jay, who voted in the linked discussion), explicit (and by extension significa liberdade), and a couple others from discussions i haven't bludgeoned- i mean, participated in? their adminship might be at risk!!

if those things are so seriously wrong, the fact that other admins don't seem to realize it and just delete blars like it's nothing should really point to an issue on either side. i'm not entirely sure if it's the pile of people doing something with no issue or consequence, or the one admin insisting that there is one and pointing to a discussion that, on top of being a bit of a mess, deliberately said nothing about whether or not this is an issue consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Possible ATD: There is a mention of "pig squealing" at Screaming (music)#Deathcore, which the article pre-BLAR mentions as an alternative name for breeing. I would personally rather send this specific case to AFD than delete it here; I wouldn't guarantee this gets deleted there, unlike List of Strogg in Quake II. It's likely, but not guaranteed, especially if info about it can be worked into another article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  that's info on squealing, not breeing. a mention of one term says nothing about a possible synonym. even then, that mention is unsourced, so it might be better off removed consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since various actions on previous RfDs have been interpreted as support for one side or the other of the can-BLARed-pages-be-deleted-at-RfD debate I would like to make it very clear that my relisting this should not be taken as an opinion in any direction beyond the fact that we do not appear to have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Poor people's rights

• Poor people's rights → Equality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am not sure if we have a page that this is a natural fit for, but the "Equality" disambig page certainly isn't it. I can imagine a redirect to Economic inequality, as at least much more on topic? But that isn't really talking about rights at all, just the general existence of economic inequality. There's an ACLU handbook of poor people's rights, which isn't mentioned anywhere on wiki. I think the most common use of this phrase is for various social safety net programs? Rusalkii (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• The current target is definitely wrong. I'm wondering whether a set index would be the right fit here? A couple of minutes searching finds Poor People's Alliance, Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, Poor People's Campaign, Poor People's Movements, Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for a Moral Revival and English Poor Laws which all seem to deal with some aspect of this search term, and I strongly suspect there are more. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Per a suggestion of @Thryduulf at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Navigation pages, I agree that it could be fit to be a navigation page, which would match better than either a set index or redirect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

+1 on the {{navigation page}} conversion. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Set Index Article or Navigation page? For reference, we have 3 navpages on enwiki, and one is at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Navigation pages are still under discussion and have not yet achieved official consensus. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hot Lava and Chicken

• Hot Lava and Chicken → A Minecraft Movie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No passing mention in this article, pointless redirect TzarN64 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

However, it is a line right before a well-known part of the film, and so some might search it here hoping to find the movie it came from if they forgot, so it could be useful to them. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 23:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rusalkii (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Steve's Lava Chicken. Jay 💬 11:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Heroic Sons and Daughters

• Heroic Sons and Daughters → Children of Troubled Times  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completing incomplte nomination on behalf of Wheezythewave. The rationale appears to be The two film being linked is not the same. There is not much relevancy, per WP:RFD#DELETE. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can give a convincing reason for keeping. From the Chinese Wikipedia, Heroic Sons and Daughters seems to be the name of a completely different film: see zh:英雄儿女. Pinging LlywelynII, who made some early edits to this redirect and may know what's going on. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I just notified of this discussion at the target talk, which has a sourced mention, although that was from 10 years back and I'm unable to get to that source. Jay 💬 13:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• @Jay, the relevant content from that source is Even the current Chinese national anthem comes from the film Heroic Sons and Daughters (风云儿女 1935). The name of this song is March of the Volunteers (义勇军进行曲 1935) composed by Nie Er (Di 2008). This unambiguously refers to the target (our article has patriotic 1935 Chinese film most famous as the origin of "The March of the Volunteers", the national anthem of the People's Republic of China). The original content of this page was a dismabig page, with one entry pointing to the current target Children of Troubled Times and the other to a 1964 film which seems to be the one Mx. Granger linked the zhwiki article for, which doesn't seem to have a corresponding English article. Rusalkii (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. So we have one source using this title for the 1935 film, but I think the 1964 film (currently a redlink) is the primary topic for this title. That suggests we should disambiguate per WP:PRIMARYRED. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough if Google is showing that the other less important film is the correct PRIMARYTOPIC for the namespace but the current guidance at PRIMARYRED is contradictory, not helpful. As far as the posters here have noted, there isn't a blue link to provide at a dab landing page so any temporary dab just would be deleted by other overzealous editors. The productive options here are for one of y'all to either go ahead and create a stub for the 1964 page or to just leave the redirect where it is and note the other title in a dab header on the 1935 film's page. — LlywelynII 02:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith

• Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith → Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:AGFAAAGFGF → Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not seem to be pertinent to the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, humor is allowed in wikispace but at this point it just gets nonsensical. Even back in 2009 when this was created it wasn't mentioned at the target. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as creator; in use in two essays at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Assume_th.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those are both in "See Also" sections. They can just be removed, and in fact probably will be removed automatically should this RFD close as delete. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia:Assume the good-faith assumption of assuming the assumption of good faith was in good faith as one of those super-rare occasions where ... seriously? The redirect is odd/humorous, the target is marked numerous, and ... unless the redirect is somehow determined to be ambiguous, I'm not seeing an issue here. However, with that being said, weak delete Wikipedia:AGFAAAGFGF since using shortcuts to humorous targets may not be the best utilization of a shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Shrug per Steel1943. It's Wikipedia space and it's not like we're using the title for anything else. Rusalkii (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

DXYK

• DXYK → List of GMA Network radio stations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. No mention of "DXYK" at target page, became a redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXYK just in case it ever became notable 1 year later. 124.104.16.92 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, while it's not mentioned on the target, I guess this is because it's not an active station, as opposed to bearing no relevance. That said, it has some history from the former article and the AfD result ended in a redirect specifically to avoid a scenario of deleting it outright. As the initialism was relevant once to a GMA radio station, I don't see any harm keeping this redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Creation (Dragonlance)

• Creation (Dragonlance) → Dragonlance#Fictional history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this was intended to mean "the creation of Dragonlance", but it's ambiguous. I was expecting to find details of a fictional character or something called "Creation", but there's nothing here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: When it was an article, it was about the fictional creation story of the world and its early fictional history, rather than the real-world development of the world setting. Maybe there is a better name for it if it needs to be moved for clarity purposes? Or if necessary, a little more context can be added to Dragonlance#Fictional history? BOZ (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The title may be somewhat ambigous, but the target is what we currently have on the subject of creation of the world of Dragonlance. To my knowledge, there is no more suitable target, nor any content present on Wikpedia which would fit to what other meanings one might think of under this heading. Even after the significant condensation of former content as described by BOZ, creation of Krynn, aka the world of Dragonlance, is still present. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete or retarget to simply Dragonlance. There are two sections in the article on Dragonlance which this might plausibly point to: the current target (about the in-universe creation of the world) and Dragonlance#Creation (about the real-life origins of Dragonlance-the-media-property. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

PD2

• PD2 → The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pd2 → Payday 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too ambigous for it's own good. According to google, I get:
- Results for a NN Diablo 2 mod called "Project Diablo 2" (this seems to by far be the most popular use)

- Some random flying disk (also NN)

- Payday 2

- A WP:PTM for a thermometer's model code

No mentions of "The Princess Diaries 2" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 01:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note I've added Pd2 to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Disambig. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. I haven't added P680#Components (one of which is "P_D2") because I don't understand it enough to know whether it merits a dab entry or not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambiguation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Thryduulf.

124.104.16.92 (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support proposed dab --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Wubwubwub and Wub wub wub

• Wubwubwub → Helmholtz resonance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wub wub wub → Dubstep  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Inconsistency in redirects. The term "wub" is mentioned on the Dubstep page, while "Wub wub wub" appears in the title of an external link on the Helmholtz resonance page. Do note that a Wiktionary entry for "wub" exists as well. -insert valid name here- (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the dubstep one, it's a common association to the genre, per the content at Dubstep#Wobble bass. I don't really know enough about "Helmholtz resonance" to comment, though it strikes me as less likely to be typing all of the "wubs" out as one long "word". Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. Of note, "wub-wub-wub" appears in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. BD2412 T 18:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Fapstinence

• Fapstinence → NoFap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be a neologism, no indication of wide usage of term GnocchiFan (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's mentioned in the article with two sources, and wikt:Citations:fapstinence gives another example. It was also apparently added to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary in 2014.[7] Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Supercute!

• Supercute! → Rachel Trachtenburg#Supercute!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect to Trachtenburg isn't appropriate as another member has an article. Launchballer 22:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The current target is by far the most helpful for someone looking for information about the band as it contains far more information than the passing mentions on Cumming's article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Six Million Germans (Nakam)

• Six Million Germans (Nakam) → Daniel Kahn & the Painted Bird  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nakam is a serious subject and I don't think a Redirect with this page title should be redirected to the article of a musician. From what I gathered from the biography, the musician had a song that had allusions to Nakam but I don't think that association is strong enough to have this Redirect. I think a reader looking for information on Nakam will likely be astonished to end up at the article for a Klezmer musician. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It's the exact title of a song by the klezmer band (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: title of the song not mentioned at target. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Higer K-group

• Higer K-group → Algebraic K-theory#Higher K-theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo / created in error; Special:Search/intitle:higer shows no similar such redirects for more common phrases. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, looking at the move history from 2015, it does seem like it was a typo during a rename which was quickly rectified, but this variant remained and does not serve any useful purpose as a plausible misspelling. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Poast

• Poast → wiktionary:Special:Search/poast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't seem to fit the criteria suggested by WP:SOFTSP. The original poast article was about a non-notable message board (as determined by previous AfD). On the other hand, the Wikitionary entry is about something entirely different. This has no links in article space. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Penis cola

• Penis cola → Peniscola  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 13 § Penis cola – keep

Implausible incorrect misspelling spacing. 1033Forest (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last RfD in 2022. This is a plausible {{R from incorrect spacing}}, and not a misspelling as the nom has stated. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oops, meant to say incorrect spacing in my nomination reason, that's fixed now. 1033Forest (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per CycloneYoris and the previous RfD. It's very plausible that autocorrect (e.g. on a mobile device) would assume the user meant to enter "Penis cola" if "Peniscola" is not in its dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)