Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2025.

Moronism

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 Moron (psychology). Rusalkii (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

MoronismMoronism → Mormonism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I retargeted this to Mormonism as an R from typo because it's one character off and I doubt anyone is typing this to go to the psychology page but looking at the history there seems to have been a recent edit conflict between two people on sending this to Mormonism or Moron (psychology). Thoughts on what should be the target? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Moron (psychology). While "Moronism" is a plausible mispelling (or a satirical misspelling) of mormonism, moron is a more likely target especially with a corresponding Wiktionary entry TruenoCity (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Moron article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 22 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).

Asian Library

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Rusalkii (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Asian Library → University of British Columbia Library#Asian Library (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created by a very recent merge. There are several possible targets in addition to the UBC Library, however. These include East Asian Library and the Gest Collection, C.V. Starr East Asian Library, and Harvard–Yenching Library, among others. A disambiguation page may be in order. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As the merger, if consensus can be reached on suitable entries, no problem with disambiguation. it's lio! | talk | work 02:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to a disambiguation page. I agree that Asian Library is quite broad as a term. Cyali (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Disambig in addition to the above, there is also Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library and Washington University Libraries#Specialist libraries. If a dab is created, East Asian library should be created as a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The "L" is capitalized, showing that this is being used as a proper name; and while there are indeed other generic "Asian libraries", the UBC example appears to be the only one actually titled "the Asian Library". I'd have thought, therefore, that the redirect should be left as it is; but that dab pages should be created for "Asian library" and "East Asian Library". GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Grind. Jay 💬 10:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation seems like the most reasonable approach here. Not convinced by above argument that the title is indeed distinct enough to clearly only refer to the one subject. The dab page should be made regardless of outcome, but I personally don't see what would make the current target the primary topic. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation draft requested Rusalkii (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Draft:Asian library. Cnilep (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguate This is clearly a generic/ambiguous term; pointing to one specific target is presumptuous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Electrism

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Etymology of electricity#Electrism * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

ElectrismElectrism → Electricity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~I'm not sure whether "electrism" is a real word; google search gives me a random mix of stuff, which suggests it isn't. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)~~

I have not heard this word in any context. Constant314 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete The only significant thing that comes up is a Huffington Post article about Carmen Electrism, relating to Carmen Electra. There's no use of that term anywhere else, though, so that redirect target also doesn't work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep! A Google Books search comes up with numerous pieces of evidence, for instances this that this is in fact a real, if perhaps archaic, word, whose meaning is 'electricity'. Jay Cubby 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@JayCubby: Good catch! Consider my initial nomination struck then. Duckmather (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, this seems to be the ramblings of a crackpot, and it's unclear that "electrism" is even talking about electricity as it's normally understood, and not some related crackpottish idea. As I noted below, I'm unable to even find this term in the OED. It's unlikely that anyone is going to search for this, let alone that they're merely looking for the general topic of electricity if they are. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I just double checked, and a search in this book finds 31 matches for "electricity" vs. 18 for "electrism", so it's quite unlikely that the author actually means for "electrism" to refer to the same thing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per JayCubby. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete as, at best, an obscure, archaic term that's not (nor should be) mentioned at the target. I don't even see it listed at the OED. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I have decided to add a sourced mention to the section Etymology of electricity#Electrism instead of at the main Electricity article (as the latter has a hatnote to the article Etymology of electricity, which includes the former). Duckmather (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Etymology of electricity § Electrism per the nom's addition. @Duckmather: By "worka" did you mean "works"? Jay 💬 13:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Duckmather corrected the "worka" typo. Jay 💬 18:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Etymology of electricity § Electrism per above. Enix150 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget per above; the term is not mentioned at electricity. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Syriacs

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Syriac. There are roughly three equal factions in this discussion: Keep as is, retarget to Terms for Syriac Christians or disambiguate in some form or another. Given that situation, there clearly isn't consensus that either of the first two is the primary topic, so a disambiguation page seems warranted in the spirit of WP:NCRET. On whether to create a separate disambiguation page or retarget to the existing one, the consensus is to WP:DABCOMBINE the two terms, despite Jay's arguments otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

SyriacsSyriacs → Assyrian people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Proposing a new retarget to Terms for Syriac Christians, as the reasoning is outlined in the proposed target article: "Syriac Christians of Near-Eastern (Semitic) origin use several terms for their self-designation. In alphabetical order, the main terms are: Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Syriacs." This indicates that the term is not solely associated with Assyrians. Academically, Syriac and Assyrian are distinguished, with Syriac often used as a synonym for Aramean. Syriac functions both as an exonym and an endonym for Aramean Christians. For reference, see this source, which states: "genocide of the Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans." Until a modern Aramean people article is established, this redirect would be more fitting with Terms for Syriac Christians as the target. Note: I was unable to place the RfD notice on the redirect page; if someone could do so, it would be appreciated.--Wlaak (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep as is - Today, the modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group is covered at "Assyrian people" and is named so per WP:COMMONNAME. Modern scholars consider them to be the same ethnic group. The disamb page would also be a better alternative than the proposed target article. Shmayo (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Common name or not, Syriac is used to refer to multiple groups, not exclusively Assyrians. Terms for Syriac Christians speaks of this term being applied to various people, it is the most fitting one. Modern scholars do not apply "Syriac" to "Assyrian", they keep them separate, hence often speaking of Syriac/Chaldean/Assyrian, as the source I referenced. Keeping as is, would according to me, seem to be WP:POV, to only limit it to the Assyrian people and not the broader Syriac Christians which Terms for Syriac Christians is for and speaks of. Wlaak (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello Wlaak, I have previously listed several historical quotes and sources under the Gungoren village talk page but here are also some sources from our own community and church in which we identify ourselves as Aramean and not as Assyrian.

- "Syriac is a Greek derivative term for Aramean, which was widely used after the conquests of Alexander the Great."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/heritage/102-people

- "The Holy Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church declared in 1983 that the Syriac language is in fact Aramaic, and the Syrians are Arameans."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/our-heritage

- "Syriac Orthodox Christians often identify as Arameans, tracing their heritage back to the ancient Aramean kingdoms and preserving their language and traditions."

https://www.academia.edu/5159897/Ethnicity_Ethnogenesis_and_the_Identity_of_Syriac_Orthodox_Christians

- "The term 'Syriac' is derived from the Greek word 'Syrian', which itself is a translation of 'Aramean'."

https://www.wca-ngo.org/heritage/102-people 145.222.94.129 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep as is - For some reason I don't have the ability to directly reply to the first comment so I will leave my comment under Shmayo. The people who call themselves Syriac are the same as those who call themselves Assyrian. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is also what is used to identify the community. Terms for Syriac Christians discusses the various...well, terms used by them and other groups who follow the Syriac rite of churches, so it's not really fitting to redirect it there.
By the way @Wlaak, the Dutch IP 145.222.94.129 was the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation only last September for disrupting Güngören, Midyat in favor of Aramean identity. They are absolutely not fit to take part in this discussion based on that alone, and seeing them write:
"The only group that calls itself Assyrians are the Iraqi Nestorians and some Chaldeans. You are talking nonsense and no one from our community supports your illusion."
...is extremely telling here. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Do not talk to me about who is fit and not fit to be participating, I am my own. Talk to him about it. I called out his manners already. Wlaak (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Well you are both discussing on that article's talk page how to find sources to change the name of the villagers to Aramean, and you mentioned the redirect to Terms for Syriac Christians in one of your responses. It was just my inference. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
No we weren't. IP asked how we could change the redirect, I told him if he wishes to do so, there is an open discussion for it and linked it. I said if you have sources that do indeed tell that the village is Aramean, then it can be changed, if there isn't, it remains as what the sources say. Wlaak (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep as is - the terms "Syriac" and "Assyrian" refer to the same group of people. However, "Assyrian" is the common name. Terms for Syriac Christians is an explanation of the different terms, not an article about the people per se. Mugsalot (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
There is almost no one in our Syriac Orthodox community who identifies as Assyrian. You are talking nonsense here to suppress your illusion of a great Assyrian people. Our people and church have massively stated that we are descended from the ancient Arameans. The only group that calls itself Assyrians are the Iraqi Nestorians and some Chaldeans. You are talking nonsense and no one from our community supports your illusion. 145.222.94.129 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Relax mate Wlaak (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry mate but both Shmayo and Mugsalot have been blocking everything for years now and every change we make they change it back to their Assyrian ideology. It is very frustrating and my limit was that they would change my village. However, they have filled in everything that has to do with 'Arameans' as if they are extinct. An example is the page "Tur-Abdin". That is our home area where all Syriac Orthodox Christians come from. This area has nothing to do with the Assyrian identity. I would very much appreciate it if something would be done about this once and for all. Also on the page "Arameans" they constantly try to remove all links that have to do with the Syriacs and add parts as if we no longer exist. It all has to fit in their own Assyrian street. 145.222.94.129 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It may be the common name, but it is no exclusive to Assyrians, that's the point. In academics, the terms are often differentiated, with Syriac often equated to Aramean. Today, the article that speaks of all groups is Terms for Syriac Christians, it includes the Arameans, Chaldeans, and the Assyrians. Assyrian people writes three sentences of Arameans, neither does it write of the correleation between the Syriac name to these three different names. It is also only the Assyrian name being "prevailed". Wlaak (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support retarget - not exclusively Assyrian per Terms of Syriac Christians Historynerd361 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support, I agree with the proposal. The term "Syriac" is not exclusively synonymous with "Assyrian" and is often used in broader contexts that include Aramean and Chaldean identities as well. As noted in the target article, several groups of Near-Eastern (Semitic) origin—Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Arameans use "Syriac" as a self-designation. The academic distinction between Syriac and Assyrian, along with the usage of Syriac as both an exonym and endonym for Aramean Christians, supports redirecting to the more inclusive "Terms for Syriac Christians" rather than a narrower ethnic designation. Until a dedicated article on modern Arameans exists, this redirect better reflects the current scholarship and self-identifications! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivercik (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: @Wlaak: I have tagged the redirect. For future reference, please see WP:RFDHOWTO regarding how to tag redirects with the {{Rfd}} template ... since this edit of yours does not seem like the resulting template usage per the instructions listed at WP:RFDHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Wlaak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Retarget as nominator. Wlaak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget. "Syriac(s)" should not be treated as a synonym of "Assyrian(s)". Syriac is primarily a linguistic term. Its use an ethnic term (as opposed to 'Syrian') is relatively recent . Srnec (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget Not a single source claim Assyrians to be the lone representatives for Syriacs. Therefore this is a strongly misguiding feature and thus, a more adept retarget would be Terms for Syriac Christians. 777network (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The term has different usages, but there has not been a disambiguation page (regardless of a primary topic). I have drafted a dab at the redirect by copying the content of Syriac, and looking for only entries of "Syriacs". Ideally this should be an article, and could use content from Terms for Syriac Christians, which is extremely broad. It could also source from our meta page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) (after adding citations), which was also written after plenty of discussion. Jay 💬 17:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page has been written on the nominated redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Syriac (DAB page) IMO, "Syriacs" is a plural term of "Syriac", and therefore it should be moved to more correct article giving that "Syriac" is a primary topic for the plural equivalent. 114.10.26.1 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Syriac (DAB page) per above. Enix150 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Enix150 and 114.10.26.1: In what way is a Syriac (DAB page) better than a Syriacs (DAB page)? Jay 💬 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Syriac as a redirect from plural. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
In what way is a Syriac (DAB page) better than a Syriacs (DAB page)? Jay 💬 11:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd typically expect singular and plural forms to share a disambiguation page unless a split is warranted due to its size (clearly not the case here) or if there were distinct usages appropriate to list in one place but not the other. That leads me to think Terms for Syriac Christians, Assyrian people, and Arameans should be listed at the existing disambiguation page, perhaps in the see-also. Easy enough to tweak the lede to "Syriac or Syriacs may refer to:". Are any of those three topics extreme enough reaches to justify overlapping disambiguation pages? --BDD (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Postgaardida

The result of the discussion was retarget to Postgaardia. Rusalkii (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

PostgaardidaPostgaardida → Postgaardi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

According to the article on Postgaardia, Postgaardida is not monotypic and has more than 1 genus (Postgaardi and Calkinsia). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional notes: A 2020 study also mentions Calkinsia as part of Postgaardida: Kolisko M, Flegontova O, Karnkowska A, Lax G, Maritz JM, Pánek T, Táborský P, Carlton JM, Čepička I, Aleš H, Julius L, Simpson AG, Tai V (2020). "EukRef-excavates: seven curated SSU ribosomal RNA gene databases". Database. 2020 (baaa080). doi:10.1093/database/baaa080. PMC 7678783. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What would you like to be done with this redirect? Jay 💬 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to either turn it into an article or delete it (sorry, I don't want to turn it into an extremely short stub like many of the articles about protistology, e. g. Vahlkampfiidae or Trichomonadidae only contains a sentence about where it belongs, a list of genera, a list of related articles, a reference list and a list of further reading, but no (or a minimal amount of) more details; articles like these are called substubs in my main WP). Other articles merely contain a taxobox, the sentence "X is a Y in Z" with 1 reference, where X is the name of the clade, Y the name of the taxonomic rank, Z the name of the group containing X, with or without the taxonomic rank. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

retarget to Postgaardia where a sublist for it exists -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete? (Redirects can be transition into articles at any time.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to say that retargeting to Postgaardia is also OK for me. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Kunal Singh Rathore

The result of the discussion was restore without prejudice to AfD. Pinging Joseph2302, Jay and Pppery who expressed a preference for sending this to AfD, feel free to nominate the newly restored article. Rusalkii (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Kunal Singh Rathore → List of 2023 Indian Premier League personnel changes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a suitable target; The page does not describe much about the player. Vestrian24Bio 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep "Not much" is a good target unless there is a better one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC).

Keep Wait until has established more notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Retarget: more information about him at Rajasthan Royals#Current squad. The-Pope (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete (or, I guess, restore and send to AfD if you're someone who thinks that's necessary) in favor of search showing all of the multiple mentions of this person each with too little substance to warrant a redirect rather than arbitrarily choosing one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Restore and AfD per Pppery. Kunal Rathore is mentioned in several articles, and Rajasthan cricket team § Current squad is a better target than the current or suggested targets. There is no best target. Jay 💬 13:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Restore. Per , it looks like he played a match in the Indian Premier League. That's a credible claim of notability. As always with my restore !votes, I oppose a procedural AfD. It should be left to someone who still wants to pursue deletion and is able to nominate it with a proper rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Restore and AFD RFD isn't the appropriate place to decide notability, AFD is. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Boq

The result of the discussion was retarget to BOQ. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

BoqBoq → List of Oz characters (created by Baum)#Boq (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Tin Woodman#The Tin Man in later fiction. Boq is a minor character in the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz novel; he was later reappropriated into a different character in Wicked, where he plays a substantial role and is combined with the character of the Tin Woodman. Hence, the Wicked character is the primary topic, not the Wizard of Oz character who was barely in the novel. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to BOQ. Perhaps you could modify that disambig page to add the Wicked character (having never seen Wicked, I don't feel qualified to do it). Plant🌱man (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep, the current target addresses both uses of the character. The proposed target does not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
@Tavix could we not add a hat note at the proposed target? Plant🌱man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I've added one at the current target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tavix additionally, a google search for “Boq” gives the Wicked character as one of its primary results. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Which is why the current target should be kept. Two of the three paragraphs are dedicated to Wicked. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I do understand that; however, it’s evidently not the primary topic. Additionally, I could see someone typing, e.g. the abbreviation for “Bill of quantities” or “Bank of Queensland” as “boq”; hence, why I’m suggesting to Retarget to the dab page. I do type abbreviations in lowercase sometimes. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
The initialisms are BOQ (or BoQ), not Boq. They are therefore not a factor in determining a primary topic for Boq. Because it's incorrect, I have no issue giving anyone searching in that fashion an extra click to get to the disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

And the content there doesn't even belong. List of Oz characters (created by Baum) is about characters in the Oz books who were created by L. Frank Baum. Wicked is an unofficial prequel that was not authorized by the Baum estate and therefore not part of the canonical series; not only that, but the version of Boq in Wicked was created by Gregory Maguire, not Baum. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
The content there belongs—the scope of this list is Oz characters created by Baum, it's not strictly limited to Baum's novels. Most sections include post-Baum appearances where relevant (eg: Return to Oz, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz). That said, it may be better to restore article given the recent interest in the character thanks to the film(s). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to BOQ. In my searches Bill of quantities is the closest thing to a primary topic, with the Bank of Queensland also prominent in results. Of those results using the "Boq" capitalisation, the Wicked character is the only encyclopaedic result in the first five pages (3 hits, one of which is NSFW fan fiction). Unfortunately I don't know of a case-sensitive general purpose search engine. The dab page should be improved to cover the Wicked character regardless of the outcome of this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note WP:DIFFCAPS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I explicitly addressed capitalisation in my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm aware: Of those results using the "Boq" capitalisation, the Wicked character is the only encyclopaedic result in the first five pages. The "Boq" capitalisation is the one being discussed, so you make a clear claim for the Wicked character as the primary topic for the capitalisation in question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The dab page should be improved to cover the Wicked character: Done Plant🌱man (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several options, no consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to dab page then both Oz-ite characters can be listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to BOQ as there are several plausible targets in that dab --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Tavix per DIFFCAPS, and as the current target addresses the Wicked part better than the nom's proposal. It's certainly a disadvantage having a 3-letter name, for it to be seen more of an abbreviation, however Wikipedia should not be limited by case-insensitive search engines. Jay 💬 15:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Springfield Missouri Temple

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Springfield Missouri TempleSpringfield Missouri Temple → The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri#Temples (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Although it is the official name of the Temple, it is the only Temple of Worship in Springfield, Missouri. Possibly created from an LDS member's point of view (Which to them would be the primary topic for Temple). It might not be the primary topic for non LDS members (Disclaimer: I am not a member, never have been). The term could also possibly refer to this Buddhist Temple: Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Looking on google for the exact phrase the LDS temple is overwhelmingly the primary topic - on the first seven pages of results only two hits were not for that use, and they were keyword-spammed Etsy listings. A hatnote can be added to the Buddhist temple if we have any content (the only place of worship are mentioned on the Springfield, Missouri article is St. John's Episcopal Church (Springfield, Missouri) and that's only because it's a historic building). Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Thryduulf Keep in mind that "Springfield Missouri Temple" is the official name of the Temple Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
That's another reason to keep the redirect as-is (albeit not a strong one). Redirects should take readers to the content they are looking for, and the evidence is that they are almost certainly looking for the LDS' temple. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Servite et contribuere, The link you provided calls itself the "Dinh Quang Buddhist Temple". I couldn't find anywhere where it called itself the "Springfield Missouri Temple". "[City] [State/country] Temple" has been the naming convention for LDS temples since the LDS Church adopted that naming convention in 1975. I don't know how many faiths have temple in Tokyo Japan, but the "Tokyo Japan Temple" currently refers to the LDS Temple in Tokyo within Wikipedia and has done so for nearly 20 years. I also see no statements or references of any other "Springfield Missouri Temple" within Mainspace Wikipedia other than the LDS Temple. Therefore, it does not appear a disambiguation page is needed at this time. Thanks! Dmm1169 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep LDS temples are usually named by their geographical location without punctuation (e.g. Mesa Arizona Temple), so this is a proper redirect for its use and other temples such as those of Shriners or the Masonics would be disambiguated by normally punctuated redirects which could be handled by hatnotes in-article. Nathannah • 📮 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

All India Council for Technical Education (India)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#All India Council for Technical Education (India)

Thousand Faces

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Thousand Faces

FedEx Express Flight 3609

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 3609 → Newark Liberty International Airport#Accidents and incidents (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect exists following a merge decided at WP:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 3609 and endorsed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 13#FedEx Express Flight 3609. However, information about the minor incident no longer exists on the target page as it fails the WP:AIRCRASH criteria for inclusion in the airport page. For the same reasons, the incident is not mentioned at FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents which might have been an alternative target. Rosbif73 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, as it is no longer mentioned on the target page. SirPenguin25 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:CC-SA-3.0

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:CC-SA-3.0 → Template:CC BY-SA 3.0 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

CC SA is a different license from CC BY-SA, making this fall under WP:RDELETE number 2. Only one "real" incoming link, and zero transclusions of the template "shortcut". House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment you could have boldly made this its own template if you hadn't RfD'd it instead. Duckmather (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I could've been more clear: CC SA 3.0 doesn't exist. There is only one version of CC SA: CC SA 1.0. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom since the template's name is apparently wrong. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)