Add links

May 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2023.

Ambrosial

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. There is late agreement that it is a viable search term. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the name of this page can also represent a Chinese yogurt brand“安慕希”. I don't know if it fits the WP:N. Q𝟤𝟪 07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig between Yili group and ambrosia Dronebogus (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Viable redirect from related word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term, it's simply the adjective form of a word we have a full article for. Useful redirect. If we ever get an article about the yogurt, which I doubt we will, a hatnote could be used at that time, but not before. Even if a user was looking for the yogurt, this would STILL be a useful redirect to them as it would explain the meaning of the name of the yogurt. Fieari (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep viable search term {{R from adjective}} -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:09, 31 May 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).

Criticism of

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 23:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that people looking for information on criticism are going to search for "criticism of". I suggest deleting on the grounds that it serves no purpose. Largoplazo (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't see that it does any harm but it certainly does nobody any good. The creator of this redirect has made quite a lot of other weird and/or misguided redirects. I don't think it is malicious but they should be encouraged to stop until they understand when redirects are actually appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of any scenario where anyone would want to search this. Carpimaps talk to me! 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps someone who has English as a second language thinking that "criticism of" is a phrase of itself given how frequently they are paired together. J947 † edits 11:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear redirect with little apparent purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I could see this being used if someone were to remove the thing being criticized from articles like Criticism of Wikipedia or Criticism of religion, or someone speaking English as a second language as per J947. It doesn't seem like the redirect is a issue to anyone, but it is still a slightly improbable redirect that doesn't get any views, so deleting it also wouldn't harm anyone. iWillBanU (User:Mattx8y) what did i fuck up now 14:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could say the same about any topic word followed by a preposition in the English language: "Time to" -> Time (time to leave, time to waste, time to eat, ...), for example. In addition, it seems unlikely that Criticism is what the person wants, they'd more likely be going for the more specific topic whose final word they'd left out than the very general one. At least give English Wikipedia users enough credit to assume they know what "of" means. Otherwise, they aren't going to be able to read the article anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the only plausible target I can think of for this redirect would be a "list" page, and well ... List of criticism, List of criticisms, etc. do not exist. (Well, one could create a list page using this prefix search of "Criticism of", but dang, that would be a rather large list.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943's argument. Fieari (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as partial title match to several articles at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No suitable target, and as stated above, this is just a partial title match for any topic starting with "Criticism of" (it's like having History of or Ministry of as redirects). Someone should also consider nominating List of for RfD. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:34, 3 June 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).

Aesthetics and the philosophy of art

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 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

obscure synonym, philosophy of art is usually a part of aesthetics, you would just search or link "philosophy of art" - car chasm (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It goes to a section with that title, so its use is justifiable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the title of a journal or a thesis or a book, not a likely Wikipedia article, and is based on an undiscussed reworking and retitling of a wiki article that has now been undone. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, currently a round-the-houses re-redirect but there is a short section at Aesthetics#Aesthetics_and_the_philosophy_of_art, so either redirect there or to the main Aesthetics, which will do as well if not better. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Philosophy of art redirects to the same target as the nominated redirect, meaning there is no WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 31 May 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).

Aesthetic philosopher

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. As the current target was turned into a redirect, retargetting this to its target, which is Aesthetics. Jay 💬 20:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

obscure, uncommon synonym - car chasm (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not really sure how this would be obscure. An aesthetic philosopher is someone who philosophizes about aesthetics - the connection is obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:23, 30 May 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).

Arthur the tv show

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. Jay 💬 20:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose. The chance someone would search for "Arthur (TV series)" with "arthur the tv show" is meager. It also has no reason to exist. "The TV Show" isn't a subtitle. There's also no precedent for it. If this redirect is kept, then EVERY disambiguated title would have to have a similar redirect. i.e., Surfer (EP) would have to have Surfer the ep, Franz Ferdinand (band) would have to have Franz ferdinand the band Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 19:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete It seems like an unlikely search and opens a Pandora's box for similar TV shows. The search function exists for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Pandora's Box argument might make sense if this was a recently-created redirect, but this redirect has existed since 2006. We haven't seen similar redirects propagating since then, which doesn't lend credibility to the argument. - Eureka Lott 23:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous RFD [1]. Arthur is a very generic title, and a kid wanting the article on the TV show would likely type something like this into the search box. Most or at least many readers don't know how to search precisely for TV series on Wikipedia, and this is a kids' show. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe that a child of the age that Arthur is directed at would go to Wikipedia for information. If they did, they probably would've looked up "Arthur the tv show" in the Google search bar rather than Wikipedia's. Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 04:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target audience is ages 4 to 8, and kids and adults (even childless adults) of all ages enjoy the show. It was the longest-running kids animated series in history. These days people of all ages consult Wikipedia and use the search field, especially if they are already on Wikipedia looking at a different article. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Softlavender as a {{R from search term}} -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:CHEAP, possible search term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. The nom's claim that "If this redirect is kept, then EVERY disambiguated title would have to have a similar redirect" is not true as this did not occur the last time this was kept. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this redirect is plausible as a search term and WP:PANDORA has been thoroughly debunked. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 3 June 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).

List of rulers of Belarus

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. Jay 💬 20:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Belarus. I suggest we WP:SALT it. See also Talk:List of national leaders of Belarus#Before 1918. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects re created after AFD don't meet G4 and 1 user did other than delete suggest redirection. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. There is no problem with an article being deleted at AfD and then a redirect being created at that title. Nor is there any problem with an AfD with an obvious consensus to delete being closed as redirect usually, either. J947 † edits 02:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: reasonable search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly reasonable search term for this. A7V2 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 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).

Category:Huddersfield and District

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 💬 20:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this redirect is confusing and ambiguous, the corresponding redirect at Huddersfield and District doesn't exist and it doesn't seem like the district was ever called "Huddersfield". Google only returns Huddersfield and District Association Football League so redirecting to Category:Huddersfield and District Association Football League would probably be better but there is also the redirect Huddersfield and District Power Loom Weavers' Association and generally we don't commonly use category redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 30 May 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).

Flick of the Switch Tour

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 01:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was redirected per WP:NTOUR. I gave it another glance after a while, and I think it is barely notable, but could really use some more work as I did find some more sources to fill in the article. I would like to see if we can keep and/or restore the article as there are notable mentions for the article, such as how it is the first tour to feature Simon Wright. However, if it wants to stay as a redirect or be deleted, I'm not going to object. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HorrorLover555: No discussion would be needed to restore this, per WP:BLAR it can simply be restored. Onel5969 BLARed it the first time presumably as they thought it was not notable, and no-one restored it until what I will assume was as Onel5969 says, someone evading a block so naturally this was correctly reverted. If an editor in good standing were to object to the BLAR then they could restore it and then if others still felt the subject failed notability they can take it to AfD. Perhaps more about the tour itself could be added to the current target? A7V2 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close if there no more input forthcoming. If anyone wants to restore, they may do it. Jay 💬 20:26, 6 June 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).

Æsthetically

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. Jay 💬 20:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dubious archaic misspelling, no incoming links - car chasm (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Stated in dictionary as a legitimate alternate term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just more Neelix nonsense, not even typable on a keyboard. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate spelling: wikt:æsthetically. Some keyboard have Æ key readily accessible. Carpimaps talk to me! 01:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Carpimaps: So, are you voting to "keep"? If so, I'd recommend making that clear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate alternate spelling. Fieari (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate spelling variant per User:Carpimaps --Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above: valid spelling that is perfectly available on some keyboards. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly valid alternate spelling. No conceivable benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 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).

Esthetically

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. Jay 💬 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dubious misspelling, no incoming links - car chasm (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Stated in dictionary as a legitimate alternate term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just more Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As an archaic or alternate spelling which someone might come across and be confused by. Also a very plausible mispelling for a modern English speaker. Either case makes this a useful redirect. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly valid alternate spelling. No conceivable benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 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).

Esthetical

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. Jay 💬 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dubious misspelling - car chasm (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per zxcvbnm, it's listed in the dictionaries, such as this, as an alternate spelling. Merko (talk) 08:32, 1 June 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).

Æsthetic

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. Jay 💬 20:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

very dubious archaic spelling with no incoming links - car chasm (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Stated in dictionary as a legitimate alternate term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just more Neelix nonsense, not even typable on a keyboard. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your keyboard. Keep. Merko (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as my prior rationale. Carpimaps talk to me! 01:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in above, similar nominations. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly valid alternate spelling. No conceivable benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 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).

Being Beautiful in Spirit

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 01:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alternative capitalization of a redirect, obscure synonym - car chasm (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to idioms. This specific phrase isn't mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious nonsense redirect having nothing to do with the target. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per principle of least astonishment. Mostly unrelated term, and if someone were searching this, I don't think aesthetics is what they're looking for... more likely they want some sort of affirmational thing which we don't have, and so we shouldn't pretend we do. Fieari (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unclear and possibly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Merko (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, a discussion for a similar redirect, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 31#Being beautiful in spirit, is leaning towards "restore and send to AFD". This may be relevant for the redirect nominated here since it is a capitalization variation of the other redirect, so the path may be to retarget this nominated redirect to Being beautiful in spirit in the event it becomes an article; then, if Being beautiful in spirit gets deleted via WP:AFD, then this redirect will be speedy deleted via WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 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).

Ethestics

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. Not a misspelling, thus no arguments for deletion advanced. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 02:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon misspelling - car chasm (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a common American spelling, as noted in first sentence of target. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 30 May 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).

Beautiful language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Beautiful language

Kalology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Kalology

Aesthetics of art

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 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym, redundant name - car chasm (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Believable term for what the section is about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful redirect, alternative phrasing of same idea. Plausible search term. Not obscure in the slightest. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 31 May 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).

Aesthetics and philosophy of art

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 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure overlong synonym with no incoming links - car chasm (talk) 17:47, 30 May 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).

Lily Allen's forthcoming album

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as there is not an appropriate target. Historically it has had understandable targets, but Lily Allen has no imminent plans to release a new album (see here if you're interested), so even a redirect to Allen's article would be a bit misleading. This is a very unlikely search term. Pinging UnitedStatesian, who retargeted it to No Shame (Lily Allen album) (which had been released at the time) in 2020. — Bilorv (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a moving target. If Lily Allen were to resume recording, each time she planned to release a new album, the redirect would have to be retargeted. As a distant second choice, retarget to Lily Allen discography. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Served its purpose, album has been out for several years now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and thanks for the ping. These redirects serve no purpose after the target is no longer forthcoming, or if targeted to a bibliography/discography/filmography article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 5 June 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).

Wikipedia:XPLAIN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what xplain means in this case? The target was not mentioned. Q𝟤𝟪 09:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It looks like a portmanteau of X/Chi, the greek letter sometimes used as a shorthand for Christ (see Xmas) and the word "explain". Unusual, but not harming anything and it seems appropriate for an essay on explaining Christianity. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly vague for whether it is referring to WP:EXPLAIN. Liable to cause WP:SURPRISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as coopting a valid search term ("explain") for a mere opinion essay about how Christian wiki articles should be presented. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if anything, it should be exactly the same as WP:EXPLAIN and not an wP:ASTONISHingly different topic. Thus not useful. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:14, 31 May 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).

Assistant Attorney General

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Assistant Attorney General

Tornado and tornado outbreaks

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 💬 07:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unlikely search term with the repeated "tornado" Fram (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Good redirect since it will catch anyone who doesn’t hit “list of”. Being honest, “List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks” is an odd-name to anyone who doesn’t know the name of the article’s name already. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. "Tornadoes and tornado outbreaks" might catch what you describe, but "tornado and tornado outbreaks"? That's just a bizarre search term (and even corrected, probably more chance that they were asking "give me information on tornadoes and tornado outbreaks", not strictly "give me a list of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks"). Fram (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm actually having a hard time parsing the name. "Tornado and tornado outbreaks" seems very weird. Like, it seems to mean "Tornado outbreaks and tornado outbreaks"? Valereee (talk) 17:38, 30 May 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).

Death of Nintendo

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 💬 08:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a film title to one individual cast member within it. This is generally a bad idea, and a film title should always be an article, a redlink or a redirect to its director if an article really can't be supported, and never a redirect to one individual actor in its cast. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Redirects going to the director is what I've generally seen and it makes more sense than targeting an individual actor, so I wouldn't be opposed if someone wanted to argue the director should be the target instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Raya Martin as director. The film has shown at Tribeca. The creator Valerie Castillo Martinez does not have a Wikipedia page yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:R#DELETE #10 as an article could be created for the film. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Film is named in 10 Wikipedia articles (but not in the proposed retarget above), but it should not be a redirect per WP:R#DELETE #10. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to redlink it and encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of these cases where a red link is superior to a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 19:28, 3 June 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).

Democratic planning

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8#Democratic planning

God - The Single

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! 04:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful, very vague, I suggest deletion. Veverve (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Google suggests this is an unambiguous target, and it's a plausible search term for someone using copy/paste from one of the various sources that describe it in exactly these terms. Fieari (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fieari above; this is how the song is titled in many official venues: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless some kind of disambiguation is necessary. This seems to be a named used for this particular song. A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 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).

Category:Romanesque architecture in the United States

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 keep. Relisted at WP:CfD. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category should be deleted: Romanesque was a style of medieval Europe; the proper category for these buildings is Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in the United States, all now moved. ɱ (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close and send to CfD. Deleting a page that was a category for more than five years is out of the scope of RfD, and it should be discussed at the appropriate venue. CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it should probably go to CFD as it was redirected by the nom immediately before being nominated at RFD. If it had been redirected a while ago then RFD may be fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 1 June 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).

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/why

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Although it is actually a redirect Q𝟤𝟪 02:13, 30 May 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).

Template:Cleanup bare URLs/why

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not have a link to it and should be removed Q𝟤𝟪 02:12, 30 May 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).
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_30