Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 31

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

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• 2027 FIVB Men's Volleyball World Championship2027 FIVB Men's Volleyball World Championship → FIVB Men's Volleyball World Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFD#DELETE no. 10 and not mentioned at target. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 23:31, 31 August 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).

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. If a mention is readded, feel free to request an undeletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Principality of Ongal → Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland and other claims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Princedom of Ongal → Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Hasn't been mentioned at target since 2023. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment this and related redirects were discussed and kept at RfD in 2022 when they were mentioned in the target article. The consensus of commenters there was very much that the mention in the article was DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• There were a 100 incoming links from a translusion at {{Micronations}}, and a hatnote from Ongal which I have removed. Now there is only a flag at Flags of micronations § O. I also notified of this discussion at the target. Jay 💬 08:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to restoration if a mention is readded, the target offers no context on what this may be or how it's related to the border dispute. My first thought was the Principality of Oertha, which somehow manages to be more real than this. Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 18 September 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Draft:Thiru Vikram → Thiru Vikram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer required, Draft moved to mainspace 5 years ago HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Tevildo (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• keep per above. drinks or coffee _{or prime} *GET OUT* 13:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RDRAFT --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:09, 2 September 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Bradtmoore, CaliforniaBradtmoore, California → Heber, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target article never mentions Bradtmoore, making this redirect more confusing than helpful. I have no idea what Bradtmoore is/was and neither does anyone else on WP, it seems, so why do we have this redirect? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the half-sentence mention. Still, former names of long-abolished post offices are not notable and are an unlikely search term for someone looking for information on Heber. Suggest deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Anyone searching for this place would learn that there was a post office with the name a half-mile north of Heber. Of course the post office wouldn't be notable but that's why it's a redirect and not a stand-alone article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Tavix. Also, the redirect has a record of previous content before the stub was redirected. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:34, 1 September 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).

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 Border#Regulated borders. There seems to be a consensus among both participants that this is an improvement compared to the previous target. It's not the strongest of consensuses, so if someone has an argument for a different outcome, let me know, and I'll re-open and re-list. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hard borderHard border → Brexit and the Irish border#Hard border  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hard border is a general term also used outside of the context of Brexit. But there isn't really a good target for this. Best I could find is Border#Regulated borders. Open border#Types of borders could also be a viable target if we add a definition of the term there; I think it is similar to the defined "controlled border". 9ninety (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

At the time I created it, the target made sense. The term "hard border" was being bandied about and, like most things Brexit, "means exactly what I want to mean, no more and no less". So directing it to the specific section of the B&tIb article was the most useful to readers. Seven years later, a world-wide perspective says it has to become Border#Regulated borders. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• SmashburgerSmashburger → Smash burger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Smashburger was moved to Smashburger (restaurant chain) as the result of a recent RM. At that time, the closer redirected Smashburger to Smash burger. Looking over that RM discussion, it is unclear whether there is a consensus for this primary redirect, and the closing editor offers no explanation for it in the rationale. Recommend a two-item dabpage at Smashburger. 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I was about to suggest keeping the target but doing a disambig but that already exists, so status quo is fine. guninvalid (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep if we are going by my vote in that discussion. Wrong venue if you go by the fact that the nominator is seemingly disputing the closer's result, meaning WP:MRV is that way. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. We cant have a disambiguation page with two topics. That's the reason we have Template:For.--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Blockhaj: Yes, we can: WP:TWODAB. (But, do I think we need one here? Nope.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:TWODAB, such a page is only appropriate if there is no primary topic. At least I personally have never heard of Smashburger the restaurant but I have eaten a smashed burger, so I would think the dish would be the primary topic. As mentioned previously, there's already a Template:For anyway. guninvalid (talk) 08:46, 1 September 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).

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 23:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Golden Age of America → History of the United States (2016–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Golden Age of America was previously created and XfDd. Term is not used academically to refer to a specific era. If this article is to be made again, it really needs to be an actual article made through the AfC process. guninvalid (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22#Golden Age of America. guninvalid (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The American economy is in decline, the COVID-19 pandemic was the most serious epidemic the country has faced in decades, the democratic backsliding in the United States is still ongoing and we have sources pointing to the existence of authoritarian presidents, the United States Constitution is still dysfunctional and to quote one of our sources: it is the main reason "why the US still has so many undemocratic institutions that most or all other democracies have reformed."^[1], and the country has alienated key allies like Canada and Mexico. If this real-life dystopia is the country's "golden age", I would like to see someone describing an actual improvement in the life of the proverbial average Joe. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, the term is too ambiguous and doesn't have a clear link to a specific time period. Suonii180 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Gilded Age as a near-synonym. Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think they're more like antonyms. A golden age "denotes a period of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity"; the gilded age was "a time of materialistic excesses marked by widespread political corruption". Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Beat me to it. Paradoctor (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Great minds, and all that. :) Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• There's a mention at Golden Age#Present-day usage. I'd expect something like Pax Americana or American Century though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's only a brief allusion and one which doesn't need a link or redirect. Not to mention the period in question is the post-covid era, completely incongruous with the redirect target. guninvalid (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as ambiguous; but if kept, retarget to Second inauguration of Donald Trump#Inaugural address. I find very few sources using the phrase prior to January 2025 and never consistently about the same historical period, and many sources using it after that date in specific coverage of Trump's inaugural speech (in which he said the "golden age of America begins now"). Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No one calls the current catastrophy a Golden Age. That would rather be like the Mid-20th-century baby boom.--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 12:48, 2 September 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).

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of biblical places. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Biblical landsBiblical lands → Land of Israel#Biblical borders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Arbitrary term that could mean many things. Delete as vague. — Anonymous 17:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• This should be a blue link as it's a very common phrase that people will search for. I agree the current target isn't perfect, List of biblical places is much better but still not perfect. If Category:Hebrew Bible regions were an article I'd be strongly recommending retagetting there, but as it's a category and there are mainspace options I'm not so sure. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support retarget to List of biblical places as a good search term per Thryduulf's suggestion. TNstingray (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• retarget to List of biblical places. Not the best target in my opinion but I think it suffices for our redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:50, 2 September 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).

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 23:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Star Wars 3.5 → Rogue One  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Star Wars Episode 3.5 → Rogue One  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirects, because there is an unclear target (Rogue One vs Solo). Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:52, 31 August 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).

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 23:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Great X-odus → Twitter under Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not used in target article and it looks like it never was. Sources use the phrase, but inconsistently (sometimes referring to advertisers leaving since 2022, sometimes users leaving in 2024) and mostly as a headline. Belbury (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete useless redirect with no reference at target. CNC (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as we don't have content here for it --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:53, 2 September 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).

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 Mathematical Operators (Unicode block). Rusalkii (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• ≑≑ → Equivalence relation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This character is called "GEOMETRICALLY EQUAL TO" in Unicode, and there is no explanation of this at the target, nor any content related to "geometric equality". 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment geometric equality is discussed at Equality (mathematics)#Geometry, although that symbol is not used there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Equality (mathematics)#Geometry or Mathematical Operators (Unicode block). Unicode symbols are valid search terms and should not be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

In general, being a valid search term does not justify redirects for titles where we have no reasonable content to point the reader at. I am not sure the article on the Unicode block is particularly informative here, but I would not mind it too much. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:33, 31 August 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).

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 with minimal prejudice to recreation as a subst-only template if it does turn out to be used despite being obsolete on fr.wp. Legoktm (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Sommaire → Template:TOC limit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED, fr:template:Sommaire was already obsolete in 2008; the handful of uses I removed from mainspace are clearly from French Wikipedians wandering out of context Paradoctor (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Convert to subst-only template so a bot automatically fixes all future uses. Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted has a lot of foreign language templates like {{Baustelle}} or {{Cita testo}}. Warudo (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Fine with me. I keep learning new stuff here. Paradoctor (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Why keep it and trouble the bot for possible future uses, when it can just be deleted? Jay 💬 11:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, no need for this at this point. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Convert to subst-only template then punt to TfD. Most arguments in WP:FORRED don't apply to Template-space and a bot replacing the foreign language template limits the amount of confusion that can be generated by an editor using one. {{Baustelle}} was created in order to ease the burden at Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates per the edit summary. I don't frequent TfD, but if this is standard practice there then I see no reason not to do the same here. The fact that this and similar "templates" were ever transcluded at all makes it seem likely to happen again (if uncommonly). ⇌ Synpath 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, added a draft for the proposed template syntax based on {{Baustelle}}. ⇌ Synpath 17:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because the template in the French-language Wikipedia is obsolete. Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted is useful for translation purposes when one would encounter a well-used template in the course of translating. However, you would not encounter an obsolete template so it's unnecessary to maintain that functionality in this instance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:48, 22 September 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).

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. In particular, this close is without prejudice to recreation as a dab page. Rusalkii (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Federal BroadcastingFederal Broadcasting → Raycom Media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect claims to be from a predecessor company name of Raycom Media, but is mentioned nowhere on the page itself, nor can I find any reference to this online. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 23:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment connection between Federal Broadcasting and Raycom is mentioned in several other articles, generally in passing, see e.g. WJTV#History and WPBN-TV#History but I've not investigated sourcing. My gut feeling is there is probably scope for a disambiguation or set index or something, not necessarily at this title, because there are lots of organisations with very similar names as well as the general concept. e.g. WWJ_(AM)#Adoption of news and talk format mentions a "Federal Broadcasting Corporation" (that may or may not be the same as intended here), Rhodesia Television was formerly "Federal Broadcasting Corporation" (different to the American one), the Federal Broadcasting Committee was a significant government organisation in Argentina for a number of years (it has a section at the article about its successor - Federal Authority for Audiovisual Communication Services#Federal Broadcasting Committee), Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation and Malawi Broadcasting Corporation mention both a "Federal Broadcasting System" and a "Federal Broadcasting Corporation" (the same organisations in both cases). Czechoslovakism#End of Czechoslovakia mentions a "Federal Broadcasting Council" in passing, and a German organisation of the same name gets a mention at Power for Living#Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. Nancy N. Roberts#Career mentions a "Federal Broadcasting Information Service". How many of these organisations there actually are, and how many we have enough content about for a dabmention are questions I'm not in a position to answer right now. Thryduulf (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Thryduulf's research?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 31 August 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).

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. As no one wants to keep, retargetting as the less destructive option and the one with a numerical advantage. Rusalkii (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• American Communist Party (Haz Al-Din)American Communist Party (Haz Al-Din) → Haz Al-Din  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article for the party itself, American Communist Party (2024), seems like a more applicable target than the article for its founder. मल्ल (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget and tag as {{r from other disambiguation}} Paradoctor (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget and tag per Paradoctor. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget I guess, but really? This is yet another time in which we (referring to the entire Wikipedia community) have impermissibly let salt evasion through WP:GAMENAMEing stand. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I the author, advocate for deletion. No need as the article has been published. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to the article and tag as per Paradoctor; even though the author advocates for deletion, the proposed article that supposedly 'replaces' the redirect IS at a different title from the redirect. It'd only help to keep the redirect around and point it to the new target.
  That said, @Pppery What's this about salt evasion?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  American Communist Party (Haz Al-Din) was salted. Despite that an article was created at the title American Communist Party (2024) on the same subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hm. My immediate next question is "Well, why was the page salted in the first place?", but I'm going to stop myself from pursuing that line of discussion because that's a discussion best discussed on an AfD for American Communist Party (2024), not an RfD for American Communist Party (Haz Al-Din). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Lunamann: Because new and anonymous users would keep recreating the article at a new title once the article was move to the draftspace, but they'd do so by publishing the same draft with the same issues. This time, however, a more competent editor published a different version of the article, hence it exists at American Communist Party (2024). Yue🌙 07:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Non-plausible disambiguation. Yue🌙 07:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  To add to and clarify my points: This redirect was the result of an attempt to get around a salted title for an article deleted after two discussions. The article has been recreated at a new title by a different user with new sources, so it would make sense to redirect the redirect to the recreated article, but this disambiguation is not a plasuble search term. Yue🌙 19:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• It is common for factions and split parties to have the leader's name in brackets, not as a Wikipedia disambiguator. In this case, the only usage of this bracketed term appear to be Wikipedia-related, and this was a temporary title, per creator's vote, because American Communist Party was protected from July 2024. Duplicates such as Draft:American Communist Party, Draft:American Communist Party (2024) and Draft:American Communist Party(2024) are still not accepted to mainspace though. Agree with Yue that this is a non-plausible disambiguation. The party had three founders, and favouring one because it helped as a salt-evasion title, makes this a poor title. Delete, and the pre-BLAR content needn't be kept as it was duplicate, and the American Communist Party (2024) article evolved separately after a lot of forking and merging. Jay 💬 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 31 August 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Ganghwa Anglican CathedralGanghwa Anglican Cathedral → Ganghwa Anglican Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect page should be deleted due to the wrong title. Ganghwa Anglican Church is the correct title and all links to this redirect page have been corrected. There are only three Korean Anglican Cathedrals (called "주교좌성당" in Korean): Seoul, Daejeon and Busan. Wikipean (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's an easy mistake to get confused between a cathedral or a church. This way, a user would still reach the correct article despite their confusion. Katiedevi (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Katiedevi. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:37, 1 September 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).

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 Fungus#In food with {{r with possibilities}} added to Edible fungusEdible fungus. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Edible fungusEdible fungus → Edible mushroom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Edible fungiEdible fungi → Edible mushroom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Edible FungiEdible Fungi → Edible mushroom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not all fungi are mushrooms. This came up because the redirect was linked on the Main Page regarding Sparassis crispa, which is not a mushroom; there are some other very notable non-mushroom edible fungi like Penicillium roqueforti. Suggest retarget to Fungus#In food as an {{r with possibilities}}, since a Fungi as food could likely be split off. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak retarget as proposed. From Merriam Webster, the definition of a mushroom appears to be "an enlarged complex aboveground fleshy fruiting body of a fungus (such as a basidiomycete) that consists typically of a stem bearing a pileus – especially : one that is edible". This includes foods that aren't of the typical "mushroom" form, including sparassis crispa (the "cauliflower mushroom") which sparked this debate. However, I guess there are some cases such as the penicillin example or those mentioned at the last paragraph of Fungus#In food, so there's a weak case there for retargeting. It might be better to just move edible mushroom to edible fungus though, and cover it all under one umbrella, since the vast majority of edible fungi are indeed mushrooms and I'm not sure there's a need for two different articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per Amakuru. I also bundled two other evidently related redirects to this nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:32, 1 September 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• The New WorldThe New World → New World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

That title can refer to a TV show and a 19th-century magazine, among others, topics not mentioned in the target article. Should probably be a red link until a proper disambig is created. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't find anything about the magazine or TV show (there is a show called simply New World that I found in my cursory searches, without the definite article), but the DAB page New World (disambiguation) has several entries properly titled "The New World". I'll let the rest of the community decide whether a secondary DAB page is needed or the existing one is sufficient. — Anonymous 00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. Disambiguation (with and without the definite article) is already handled at New World (disambiguation). - Eureka Lott 04:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Eureka Lott, as clear primary topic. Note that The Old World similarly redirects to Old World. 9ninety (talk) 05:02, 1 September 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).

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 💬 04:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Alan Luo → Show Lo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name does not appear in the target article, and there is no other apparent reason for the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as per Robert's reasoning. Katiedevi (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:54, 2 September 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).

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 Muscles of the hand. Consider this a "withdrawn" result for consensus purposes. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Small muscles of the handSmall muscles of the hand → Hand#Muscles and tendons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There doesn't seem to be any such defined type of "small muscles" anywhere in the target. Readers searching this term will not find what they are searching for. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment I think this means "the small muscles of the body that are found in the hands", as opposed to "the subset of hand muscles that are smallest". I. e. all muscles of the hand. Paradoctor (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Possibly, but then the target page would need to distinguish a difference between either "muscle" or "large muscle" and "small muscle", which it doesn't. In other words, I could accept a redirect titled "Muscles of the hand" (which I am now discovering is an article, great WP:BEFORE failure on my part) targeting Hand, but not the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 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).

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. Rusalkii (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Sequential-Art → Comics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This might be better off targeting Sequential art, but considering the odd placement of the capitals (which this exact capitalization is usually used to refer to a NN webcomic) and the dash, I think this should be deleted instead. It's not mentioned in Comics either. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The hyphen could in theory be used in an adjectival phrase, but I am not too convinced this redirect should exist either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No opinion - I created this entry in Wikipedia's very early days. --The Cunctator (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The creator too has provided no explanation for the hyphen and uppercase. Jay 💬 04:24, 7 September 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).

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) Left guide (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Tel Aviv 1968Tel Aviv 1968 → 1968 Summer Paralympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems too random and there were also bombings . Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is by far the primary topic. Googling "Tel Aviv 1968" -Wikipedia literally every hit on the first four pages of results is about the Paralympics, as are all but 2 on page 5 (and one of the ones that isn't is an ebay listing) and all but 4 on page 6. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a fairly common naming scheme with regard to Olympic events. For example, Tokyo 2020 redirects to 2020 Summer Olympics. We could include a hatnote to 1968 in Israel, which mentions the bombing, if that's considered significant/likely enough, although I doubt it's required, considering Thryduulf's comment. 9ninety (talk) 11:08, 1 September 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).