Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2025.

Htps:// and Htps:

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) 01:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Unlikely misspellings that receive very few pageviews. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete as unlikely misspellings as the pageviews imply --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Lenticel. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Keep they're unambiguous and could be based on a genuine error. HTTP stands for Hypertext Transfer Portal. it's not entirely shocking that someone would only put "h" instead of "ht" for "Hypertext" as it is one word. Generally harmless as "htps" is not another protocol so it is unambiguous. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete. "HTP[S]" is not a valid communication protocol, so let's not pretend like it is. Either way, there are also WP:REDLINK issues if a protocol of the such is later created. Also, someone could think these redirects are their own protocol given FTP and FTPS exist. (FTTP, though it is related to communications, is not a communications protocol.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per Steel. Correction to Casablanca, it is Protocol, not Portal. People know it as http or https, and don't necessarily go by the expansion. Those who know the expansion, don't refer to it as htp or htps. Jay 💬 08:36, 21 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).

Walter White falls over

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#Walter White falls over

Maya--treasurer

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Maya--treasurer → Maya (treasurer) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, with two dashes I don't think it's a plausible search term. Suonii180 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. WP:COSTLY as a non-standard method of disambiguation (WP:RDAB). Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Steel1943. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Weak delete As the person who created the redirect with the dash, I did this because I wanted to send flickrmails to some people on flickr to get some people to license images freely of Tutankhamun's Treasurer and his tomb. Unfortunately, the flickrmail system is BASED ON AN OLD DESIGN and cannot use brackets in a http or url link for a person on the other end to view the specific wikipedia article that I am asking images for such as Maya (treasurer) They could only see the flickr article with a dash such as Maya--treasurer. Anyhow, I got a few images here, here and here licensed freely and that is sufficient now. But if Suonii180 or Steel1943 send flickrmail to someone on flickr to ask that an image be licensed freely on flickr for a wikipedia article and the link for that article has a bracket such as "Maya (treasurer)", flickrmail will not allow direct access to the article unlike other websites. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment I'm sympathetic to the Flickrmail arguments - they do demonstrate a clear utility for the redirect - however a better redirect might have been something like Maya overseer of the treasuries or (maybe, depending on how Flickrmail works) just encoding the parentheses in the URI as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28treasurer%29 Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Dev (mythology)

The result of the discussion was keep. Bkonrad, I'm not entirely sure what content you wanted in the hatnote, feel free to add it in as appropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Dev (mythology)Dev (mythology) → Div (mythology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Dev can be an alternative transliteration of the Sanskrit Deva, which is the term for deity in Indian religions. I'm not sure what the best target is. Deva#Religion and mythology lists several of the concepts related to Deva, but doesn't list Div (mythology), the current target. 9ninety (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete Current redirect to Div (mythology) might be misleading because "Dev" is simply another transliteration of Deva, not specifically "Div". Dev is not a notable topic and not used to mean "Deva" in reliable sources. Asteramellus (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
That's absurd. In many Indian languages/dialects, the "a" sound at the end of the word isn't actually pronounced; so Dev sounds the same as Deva. This is why Rama is commonly spelt as Ram. So Dev is a very plausible spelling of Deva, which is a notable topic. The problem is, we don't have an article on Deva (mythology). We have individual articles on Deva (Hinduism), Deva (Buddhism) etc., but not the overarching concept, which has roots in ancient Indo-Iranian religion (Deva is related to Daevas, who were similarly venerated by Iranians until they were reinterpreted by Zoroaster as malevolent). 9ninety (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep and add hatnote to Deva#Religion and mythology noting the spelling/tranlisteration (there are other religions that have similar uses for the term Deva that may also be truncated in speech or in some transliterations). Both appear to be valid alternate spellings/transliterations. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The question is, is Div (mythology) the primary topic over Deva (Hinduism)? 9ninety (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
No, the issue concerns disposition of the redirect Dev (mythology) and upon investigation, there are multiple topics that could be referenced by this term. I'd also be OK with changing the redirect to point to Deva#Religion and mythology, although considering the marginal usage, I think a hatnote is sufficient (and easier to describe variant spellings rather than trying to wedge a mention of Div (mythology) into the Deva disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep with hat per Bkonrad. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Bkonrad. Suonii180 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Bkonrad and others. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

2023 Savannah mayoral election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 21#2023 Savannah mayoral election

Online music store

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20#Online music store

RYGBV

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 undeletion of these redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

RYGBV → ROYGBIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ROYGCAB → ROYGBIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
RYGCB → ROYGBIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, acronyms not mentioned in target article and aren't plausible search terms. Suonii180 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Suonii180, the third redirect you listed isn't a redirect, but the actual article. Did you mean to put something else here? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies yes, I meant RYGCB. I've changed the third one. Suonii180 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

!vote

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#!vote

SharePointCOE

The result of the discussion was no consensus (and so restore and AfD as the least destructive option per WP:BARTENDER) on this particular redirect, but also on the perennial question of when it is acceptable for RfD to delete BLARed articles with history. I'd like to recommend to all the regular participants in the extended arguments on this topic, who I respect a great deal, to consider some method of resolving this issue that isn't having an acrimonious argument every other time a BLARed redirect is nominated. Rusalkii (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Not explained anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Restore this was BLARed in 2020 by Premeditated Chaos with the rationale "redirect marketing to the product that was being marketed". The article content was, in its entirety: MSharePointCOE is a Microsoft strategy for evangelization and sharing of SharePoint across Enterprise. and three categories, there were no sources. Unfortunately this needs to be restored and either merged somewhere or deleted at AfD as it does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and thus cannot be deleted here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete per Thryduulf's explanation sans the last sentence. Because this is a redirect, and this is the forum for deleting redirects, this can (and should!) be deleted here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
This is a blarred article, and as such needs to be treated as an article for the reasons I have to explain to you every time you try to inappropriately delete article content at RfD, despite never getting a consensus to change the policy to support your view. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
the policy (or whatever you want to cite for this, i'll go with wp:blar for now) doesn't support your view either. it deliberately says nothing about if a blar goes to rfd. it's also been stable as a redirect for a little over 5 years, so unless you can make a genuine argument for restoring its content beyond a procedural headache that introduces problematic stuff back into mainspace for at least a week, there's no actual opposition to it being blanked

i also still have no idea where you got the csd idea from, as it probably wouldn't even count as "being deleted here", but that's probably besides the point consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a policy that supports his views. If there was one he would have cited it. Instead he has to resort to vague waves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Show me one policy that says you can delete article content at RfD. Just one. I've been asking this for literally years and you've never presented one yet. Whereas I have pointed you to the deletion policy every time.

WP:ATD-R: A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, such as by reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. The preferred venue for doing so is the appropriate deletion discussion venue for the pre-redirect content, although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the page's talk page. This BLAR has been disputed by its nomination here, and by everybody who has agreed it is inappropriate.
WP:XFD states that articles and other pages in the main namespace go to AfD or Prod. It does exclude redirects, but because the BLAR has been disputed we discuss the pre-redirect content which is not a redirect.

I didn't cite these before because I didn't think you'd need to be spoonfed again after I've spoonfed you the same exact links on multiple occasions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

that's better. this still spawns problems, though

what is your actual argument for or against the content of this blar? judging by you describing the fact that this "needs to be restored" as unfortunate, i don't imagine you're exactly in favor of restoring it due to its own merits and not out of procedure. if you're not in favor of it, has the blar even been disputed? i'd say it hasn't
neither of the pages you cited state conclusively that blars need to go to afd. atd-r says it's "preferred", but doesn't mandate or oppose them going elsewhere. xfd i still don't get, because it specifically excludes redirects from afd. this is why i asked for something that didn't only have afd as an example a couple comments down

it's admittedly pedantic, but it's a case where the details are what answer the questions consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that something that is clearly not suitable as a stand-alone article in its current state cannot be deleted without less bureaucracy than AfD (or I suppose PROD) but unless and until policy changes to explicitly allow article content to be deleted at venues that are not intended for or set-up for discussing article content, and there is some method to advertise to interested parties that a venue which doesn't normally discuss article content is actually discussing article content, that is the way it has to be. Every BLAR that gets brought to RfD is, by definition, being contested. Every person who recommends something other than keeping such a redirect as a redirect to its current target is, by definition, contesting the BLAR. I have also explicitly contested the BLAR, so yes, this BLAR is unambiguously contested.

I note you still have not provided a link to or quote of any policy that supports your position. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

As for some method to advertise to interested parties... WP:AALERTS includes RfD and each WP:DELSORT topic includes a section for redirects (if someone wants to advertise a discussion there). You can also post a notice to the relevant WikiProject(s). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

how is taking a blar to rfd more bureaucratic than restoring it and taking it to afd? maybe it's more bureaucratic than prodding, but that's like saying that a blender is better at blending stuff than a wooden spoon consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 22:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: None of what you listed supports it does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and thus cannot be deleted here. WP:ATD-R explains what happens when someone BLARs an article and someone disputes that. In this scenario, you then have an intact article (not a redirect), so the logical place to dispute that would be AfD. That's not the scenario here—the page has long been established as a redirect and the selection of venue has already been established as RfD. It was nominated due to a lack of mention, which is an RfD concern that does not touch on BLAR whatsoever, so this BLAR has been disputed by its nomination here is false. Furthermore, the RFC that established this clause explicitly addressed this: This close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. WP:XFD explicitly explains that Redirects for discussion (RfD): Redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace. Given the fact that this is a redirect, and WP:XFD doesn't list any exceptions to this, RfD is the correct venue. For your interpretation to be correct, it would have to say something like "Redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace, with the exception of former article content not speediable", which of course it doesn't do. As for, you've never presented one yet, here's an example from three(!) years ago where I provided you with the relevant policy when asked. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

please don't remind me that 2022 was 3 years ago...

to add to this, even assuming that arguing for deleting the blar with opposition to restoring it is "contesting" it, and any form of "contest" is worthy of restoring it anyway (however that works), then i can and probably should provide examples of this apparently existant rule being violated by admins, because this is the first time i hear of that

not assuming it, i really want to know what thryduulf thinks explicitly prohibits blars being deleted here and/or requires them going to afd despite agreements that the content isn't worth restoring (in this case, by what seems to be everyone but the nom lmao) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 21:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are just going to claim that policy says something other than what it actually says then it's clear that anything else I say is going to be a waste of all our time, so I shall not say anything more. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind being spoonfed policies, it's no sweat off my back. But don't make the claim that you don't want to waste time when you're literally advocating to waste AfD's time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Following policy as it is written is not a waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

problem: it's verifiably not written how you say it is either. as i mentioned a couple times before, if it was, a fair bit of admins would either be in trouble for breaking a rule this important or not discussing whether or not it even exists, but that hasn't been happening a whole lot beyond this routine (at least to my knowledge) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

delete. there's no sources, no content, no promotional stuff to make fun of, nothing. honestly, i'd argue for it being a case of a3 or a7 for a quick laugh, but this is a redirect, so it doesn't meet a csd for articles~ consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
As an article it would not meet A3 because the content, although very short, does exist and it is not just a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond, a question or chat-like comments and it does not consist solely of images, template tags or article wizard framework. It does not meet A7 because it is about a marketing strategy which is not a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. There is enough context that it doesn't meet A1 either, it's not a hoax or vandalism (G3), it's not promoting anything (G11), a copyright violation (G12), a musical recording (A9), a recently-created duplicate (A10), nor is it obviously invented (A11). The only time it is possible, according to every policy, guideline and principle, to delete article content at RfD is when there has previously been a consensus discussion about the article content on the talk page or other venue for discussing article content that concluded it is not wanted (it hasn't been discussed in any such venue, so it's not possible for there to be such a consensus) or it would a speedy deletion criterion if restored (as explained in detail, it does not). Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
it's pretty obvious that this doesn't really meet any csd. however, tagging it for a tangentially related one would be funny

...jokes aside, citation needed for that use of "every". preferably one that isn't undermined by a text string such as "such as" consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 16:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Knowingly tagging anything for a CSD that it doesn't meet is vandalism. Vandalism is not funny. I should have said "every relevant policy that has anything to say on the matter" rather than assume you would understand that I wasn't being literal. I'm not sure why providing examples (as I've just done above) undermine my point when you've consistently failed to provide any examples of policy explicitly allowing the deletion of articles at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
the reason i've been careful with my use of "every" in discussions like this, even if i then narrow the definition down to something more useful than "everything i could find", is that it first requires an "any". and then another, and then another, if you're in a good mood, and that those "any"s be in such unambiguous and unanimous (if not necessarily numerous, as this part is contextual) nature that nothing opposes them. the fact that an "any" hasn't been defined yet by the failure to actually be conclusive lends little credibility to an "every", even if it's narrowed down to "every relevant x"

as for the examples, as usual, i cite wp:xfd, which says that redirects go to rfd, and wp:rfd, which says that redirects can be deleted in rfd. sure, neither of them being specific about where blars have to go is a double-edged sword, as this means i myself technically have nothing to state directly and conclusively that states directly and conclusively that redirects have to go to rfd... which is why i don't say that. i say they can (and i have proof in the aforementioned examples), and i say they don't need to go to afd if they've been stable (thus, not disputed) and it's agreed that the content that would be restored isn't very cash money, and i've shown to only oppose them going to afd from rfd (if only by never having mentioned them going straight to afd, whoops)

it's much simpler than "blars from articles have article content, so they can only ever be debated in afd, so we need to restore them no matter what, even if it's unambiguously Not Good, unless it's unlucky enough to meet a csd". plus, i can probably do that thing where i dump a bunch of examples of blars getting deleted here with no fuss again (including some where admins have voted to delete), or mention that twinkle has no issue with them going to rfd, or a third thing consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Restore as per Thryduulf, send directly to AfD. Feels a little short for what I'd normally consider worthy to be sent over to AfD but hey, maybe it can get some love. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lunamann: I'm willing to give it some love if there is sourcing for it. Did your searches turn up anything promising? If you're able to find something, it seems to me that the most we'd be able to do is add a blurb about SharePointCOE to the target, in which case we can close the RfD as "keep". Restoring is really only useful when there is enough content available for a stand-alone article—if you think that may be possible here, I'd love to hear why. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

i assumed in this discussion that thryduulf looked for sources before voting and didn't mention it for whatever reason, but for what that's worth, i looked into it just now and found... nothing usable, except for the unbelievably important revelation that it's actually "sharepoint coe", with a space consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

hey wait a minute! doesn't the act of voting to restore something that's either unsourced or agreed in rfd to not meet gng (which is particularly egregious when that's mentioned in the vote) and take it to afd without first checking for sources and stating what's been found violate wp:before? it seems like a fairly large oversight, almost bigger than the fact that that question didn't have a single comma consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete on what grounds is the WP:BLAR being contested? If the sole objection is inappropriate venue I propose a WP:NOTBURO close on the grounds that WP:N cannot be demonstrated with primary, user-generated, unreliable sources claiming the subject exists since WP:NPOV cannot be satisfied. (See also the google search results with microsoft excluded along with the news and books results). If the AfD nomination must happen, consider this a WP:BEFORE with the aforementioned deletion rationale. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As an alternative proposal, should reliable, independent, secondary coverage be located, delete and create a new section under sharepoint with details of the marketing strategy. Otherwise the merge would be dead on arrival with only a single sentence to its name — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

(and yes, contested BLARs and incorrect venue nominations can be viewed as a waste of time without proper rationales though I acknowledge the second example has some additional circumstances and issues surrounding it). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix. Nominating the redirect at RfD is not contesting the BLAR, it is contesting the redirect as a redirect. The history is not especially relevant, and the policies are clear that redirects are to be discussed at RfD. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
When someone explicitly says that they are contesting the redirect, it's not a good look to say the redirect has not been contested. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
that's... exactly what cremastra said? i'm not exactly averse to literary oopsies, but this could really have used some better wording consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 17:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Pardon? I am not saying the redirect is not contested. But the nomination statement, Not explained anywhere on the English Wikipedia deals with it as a redirect qua – if I dare use such a pretentious word – redirect, not redirect qua former article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close oldest log day, given the day's transclusion is not appearing on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion due to WP:EXPENSIVE issues. Reminder that per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Foot type

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 21#Foot type

Αν

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Αν

Hip hop.

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

Hip hop. → Hip-hop (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Per WP:UNNATURAL. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete. per nominator. It's way too awkward to end with a period. Zarceational (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Noggerel

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Noggerel → Hip-hop (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, no idea what this is, it's not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, probably an offensive pun on doggerel, but unmentioned, and likely obscure anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Former oldest living people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 21#Former oldest living people

Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20#Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation)

Polyhex (Transformers)

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Polyhex (Transformers) → Autobot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Fictional element not mentioned at target. Related to PROD for the disambiguation page Polyhex. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Note that this was an unsourced stub which was BLARed back in 2006. Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
There is a minor unsourced mention at Bumblebee (Transformers) where Polyhex seems to be shown as a place name. Delete as not enough information. Jay 💬 10:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Main Event Wrestling

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 21#Main Event Wrestling

Tyler Robinson (businessman)

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Tyler Robinson (businessman) → List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States#Ohio (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 04:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete I can't find that we have encyclopaedic content about any businessmen by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per all above. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oil and gas law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20#Oil and gas law

Dictator Trudeau

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Dictator Trudeau → Justin Trudeau (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible term, only very minor group people called him a dictator A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Not a common nickname for him, even among his detractors. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 04:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete not common. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep: As the creator of this redirect, I would like to say that I created it after seeing numerous comments on a YouTube short about Trudeau, using the term.

Per Google search results, there are about 6,000 hits for the term, albeit with many false positives (e.g. "dictator. Trudeau...") However, there are some actual uses of the term online, such as a podcast episode, a couple Quora threads, as well as comments on various social medias.

I would dispute calling the term "implausible". The fact it exists is in pejorative reference to his 10-year tenure as Prime Minister, something unusual in most Western democracies (although not rare for Canada itself, regardless a few Canadians refer to him as a dictator).

Perhaps the redirect's target can be changed to a related article referring to his long tenure, or else to an anchor in the main article, like how Cackling Kamala redirects to an anchor in Kamala Harris' article about the way she laughs. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia should not invent a term that breaches NPOV; should only use it if shown to be a common term in reliable sources, and therefore a plausible redirect because of likely search patterns.

Should not create a term based on length of office in other countries. Nine year term is not uncommon; see List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete as borderline WP:G10. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per others above. Insufficient evidence that this is common enough to overcome negative POV concerns. Unlike, say, Antennagate, this is not a useful redirect because anyone searching this knows the subject's actual name. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep per Bis. That is the same reasoning that I have used in creating redirects in the past. It seems plausible enough, as odd and POV as it is. Metallurgist (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
If someone was searching for this, they would almost assuredly already be familiar with Justin Trudeau so simply targeting his biography is not helpful (and potentially a WP:BLP violation?) Rather, a searcher would be more interested in the context of the term, that is: why would someone call him 'Dictator Trudeau'? I don't think his biography answers that question. Premiership of Justin Trudeau#Security incidents is the closest I can find, with a blurb in the second-to-last paragraph that includes ...Trudeau was "turning [Canada] into a communist dictatorship"... If the redirect is kept, I would strongly urge it be retargeted somewhere specific. If not, delete it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been able to confirm it myself, so I'll leave it as an open question: could this be ambiguous with Pierre Trudeau? I'm aware that Pierre had a fair share of opponents and, for example, was close with Fidel Castro (and as an aside, Dictator Castro is red and a situation where it could refer to multiple people). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete – Disagree that the term is commonly used enough to justify its existence as a POV redirect / potential BLP violation. Dictator Trump and Hitler Trump return 10 to 20 times more hits on Google, but that still wouldn't justify the redirects. Yue🌙 05:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Syriac people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#Syriac people

2025 Gujarat SFA Club Championship

The result of the discussion was retarget to Gujarat SFA Club Championship. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

2025 Gujarat SFA Club Championship2025 Gujarat SFA Club Championship → 2025–26 I-League 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't find any writing or source that verifies a redirect from 2025 Gujarat SFA Club Championship to Gujarat SFA Club Championship. Maybe the Gujarat SFA Club Championship is within the scope of I-League 3, but I can't find a source to that effect. In fact, Gujarat SFA Club Championship indicates that it is the state-level league, one tier below I-League 3. Either delete the redirect, or provide an explanation for it that can be put into the history or the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Gujarat SFA Club Championship this is mentioned in one place on 2025–26 I-League 3- looks like it's how one team became eligible for the 2025–26 I-League 3. However, this is not enough to have this confusing redirect, so retarget to the main article Gujarat SFA Club Championship is way more sensible and plausible. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Gujarat SFA Club Championship, where it is mentioned under the Champions section. feminist🩸 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
It was unsourced though, and I have tagged it for {{citation needed}}. Jay 💬 10:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Status update

The result of the discussion was retarget to Status Update but weakly all around, without prejudice to retargetting elsewhere should a better target present itself. Rusalkii (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Status updateStatus update → Microblogging (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is this actually the best target? Even in a social media context, status updates are not exclusive to microblogging. Status Update is a film and the hatnote already points to Status (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not the best target. I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or whether there is a more suitable option. "Status update" isn't really used with the entries at Status (dab page) so I can see why it was retargeted away from there. I agree that even the online/social media usage is broader than microblogging. The non–social media usage is also common. Ngram shows an initial rise in usage around 1980 and then a huge spike beginning around 2005. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't support deletion, but only because it would make a good redirect to Status Update even if there aren't any other good targets - and I agree with you that there isn't a clearly obvious answer to that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Weak retarget to Status Update. Basically, this is WP:ATD since the nominated redirect is vague, and almost WP:REDLINK in nature (could also refer to project status, for example). Steel1943 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

2026–27 Premier League

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Rusalkii (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

2026–27 Premier League → Premier League (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yet another pointless redirect to future season. Target article has no information specific to the 2026-27 season therefore this redirect serves no useful purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete WP:RFD#DELETE #10, too soon, not mentioned, all that. There are so many redirects like this Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFD#D10 is If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article and .... Surely, User:Yoblyblob, that's an argument to be an article, not a redirect!

Keep. The preceding season's page (2025–26 Premier League) was a redirect from 25 August 2024 until it became a fully-fledged page on 17 February 2025. Deleting seems a little pointless given the page will likely be recreated as a redirect within a short space of time and then made a full page in about six months. At their worst, redirects like this do zero harm. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:OSE. On the other hand, hundreds of similar sports redirects from future seasons are being deleted for the exact reason I pointed out: "Not mentioned at target". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's got zero to do with 'other stuff': it's that this a standard article and a standard practice. Deleting now to have it recreated in a month or two seems a little pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep - a bog standard redirect for the following season, only months before the article is created. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete This can be created again in a few months as a Draft, or sooner if there is like a notable announcement for next season (But that can be stated in the 2025-26 Article saying like: "This will be the final season with X before it is replaced with Y"). But it is too soon and wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to actually read what you're linking to: WP:CRYSTAL is about not including things that are "a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" - none of which apply here. In fact, it specifically says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place": A high-profile sporting season that is sold globally and is one of the most-publicised and watched around the world is certainly 'notable and almost certain to take place'. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat Here is another example of a deleted redirect for these reasons (Primarily too soon): Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 11#2026 NRL season. Yes, I know NRL is no where near as notable as Premier League, but keep in mind that when this was deleted, the 2026 NRL Season was closer to starting compared to how far the 2026-27 Premier League Season. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ironically that’s an OSE argument for deletion (or should it be OSDE - Other Stuff Doesn’t Exist?). As above, it’s about a month or two at most before it’s turned into a page, so it’s a bit pointless deleting the redirect now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat I guess you are right in a way, but I was just using that discussion as an example. Another argument I have would be that the article on last Premier League season was created in February 2024. I do honestly think it is a bit too soon for a redirect. It is isn't mentioned at the target either. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team → Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems an odd WP:XNR. I was trying to see if there was a wikipedia article on Wikipedia 1.0, but I find it unlikely a reader would be trying to find information on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team, which seems like a largely internal matter. Wikipedia 1.0 itself was deleted as an XNR to the same target at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 2 § Redirects to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team alongside a few related redirects. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is not a topic that needs a redirect from mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's a bad cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia namespace. Zarceational (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)