Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2026.

Operation Truthful Promise 4

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 2026 Iran war#Operation True Promise IV. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:23, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The word promise is not mentioned in this target. The redirect with formal term Operation True Promise IV redirects to 2026 Iran war#Operation True Promise IV. Retarget there where it's mentioned.
Another reason is that this operation also had other targets than just Israel. LIrala (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget. As creator, I have no objection. These were created a month ago before the article structure of the subject was clear. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to match Operation True Promise IV as {{avoided double redirect}} so they keep the same target. Not sure this needs an RfD. Seems uncontroversial to retarget to the page that discusses the topic by name. – Scyrme (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    I nominated since they are too many. LIrala (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    @LIrala: I agree that this doesn't need an RfD. To be honest, if you'd just pointed this out to me on my talk page, I'd have agreed with you and retargeted them myself. It seems clear enough, and the fact that there are 8 of them doesn't preclude acting WP:BOLDly. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nomination and all above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (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).

Stone Age Amazon

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

lol what

results gave me user-generated content related to queens of the stone age, fanfics that somehow got on news outlets, and what seems to have been ai porn. the rock era is unmentioned in the target and other articles relevant to "amazon" stuff that i could find consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Lithic stage should be relevant, but as the scope of the article is the whole Americas with most content relating to North America and "Amazon" does not appear on that page, it wouldn't make a good target. Neither of the words "lithic" or "stone" appear on Timeline of Amazon history (nor, unsurprisingly, does History of Amazon (the company) have anything relevant). Pre-Cabraline history of Brazil has a bit of relevant content, sort of, but there isn't a section that corresponds well with "stone age" so we'd have to target the whole article which is geographically and temporally much broader so I'm reluctant. History of Amazonas#Paleoindigenous and Archaic Phases is another target to be considered, but that has only a single sentence about stone tools and nothing else in the article is relevant. All in all, I've arrived at delete for lack of a good target, despite thinking we should have one. It's also worth noting that I've been assuming that someone using this term is looking for information about peoples of the Amazon basin with a stone age level of technology (during whatever period of time they lived) but looking again I'm not certain that is a safe assumption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    i think it might also apply to anyone or anything that might've been in the place that is now the amazon rainforest, or either place's geography at the time, so a section or article made about this would likely also require a disambiguator or two
    ...is what i would say, but some very slightly later trudging led me to this. do i think it's useful? eh, not particularly. maybe for something in rio negro (amazon), but i doubt it'd be that easy to cram an early report like this in there, and i couldn't find much more on that. most other results were comparing people from the amazon river and/or rainforest to those of the stone a- wow that's actually extremely insensitive, what the hell consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Timeline of Amazon history does have one thing relevant to the search: the link to Caverna da Pedra Pintada in the lede. That article, in turn, has mentions of stone tools and lithic specimens. That's a weak thread to hold this much broader redirect, though. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Love that a redirect was created for this; no regrets on seeing it return to red. Intrisit (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Unless there's a better target, refine to Amazon River#History where there's a couple of paragraphs on the Amazon in the Stone Age. It mentions "ceramic age cultures", the Ceramic Age being a division of the late Stone Age. There's also a link to the relevant content at Timeline of Amazon history. It's not a silly search term as some people above imply: Stone Age Poland is the title of a GA. J947 ‡ edits 06:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't say, and didn't intend to imply, this was a silly search term just that we don't have any article that makes a good target for it, as all are either too broad, too narrow or too tenuously linked - and I include Amazon River#History and Timeline of Amazon history in that characterisation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    Don't worry – I wasn't talking about you. J947 ‡ edits 00:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    a little late, but i'll note for posteriority's sake that "poland" is a way less vague term than "amazon". for example, this could refer to "the amazon", which may itself refer to the amazon river, or to any area within it then or now (like that really big rainforest), or, as some results suggested, to "an amazon"... that is, buff women, or women who hunted, hence the aforementioned ai porn stuff, or to "amazon" stuff, like flora or fauna native to areas near the amazon river. for what that's worth, i don't think the mention in amazon river would warrant having this specific title as a redirect to it, or any redirect at all since it boils down to one paragraph specifically on the period that happens to line up with when the early stone age was a thing (which is technically different from outright stating that it was from the stone age due to pedantry i'm actually against) that boiled down to "we know people lived there because they shat there", both this and stone age fail to actually establish anything else about what else was there at the time, and timeline of amazon history doesn't mention that time period at all
    all of this is to say that if you thought i was implying that the title was silly, no, i was implying that the title was vague and there's not enough info, here or elsewhere, for even a redirect
    also, i found this, which might actually be useful for fleshing out that currently lackluster mention consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    also also, i wrote all that and somehow didn't once consider that "stone age amazon river" would've been a better title. oops? maybe if it can be determined that that mention would warrant a redirect, that one can be created instead, but as far as this one goes, it's still too vague to keep consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Two directly-related paragraphs is patently sufficient information to justify a redirect. Like all search terms, there's a degree of ambiguity, but I don't think anyone should be surprised to end up at this target. "Stone Age Amazons" would be quite a different matter. J947 ‡ edits 20:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:44, 24 April 2026 (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).

Ramayana: Part 1 (2026)

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target * Pppery * it has begun... 19:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as not useful. Also bundle Ramayana Part 1 and Ramayana: Part 2 (2027). Jay 💬 04:51, 2 May 2026 (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).

Pauly Likens

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. Left guide (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Said person is no longer mentioned on target page. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • I added Pauly to the list. Rest in peace. Heyallkatehere (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (for now at least). I have reverted the above addition, because the source gave no motive for the crime. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • It appears the trial is scheduled to start May 12. Perhaps a motive will become apparent in due course. But I also failed to find reliable sourcing for the victim being transgender as the motive, so delete for now. -- Tavix (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2026 (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).

Proxima Librae

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The source we're using for the nearest star in each constellation lists Gliese 570 as the nearest star in Libra, but WISE 1541−2250 does appear to be slightly closer based on a more recent parallax. Should this be kept, retargeted, or just deleted since this name isn't used? SevenSpheres (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2026 (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).

Proxima Apodis

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

While these "Proxima" names have little to no actual use, their meaning is obvious: the nearest star in a constellation. However, these redirects point to the wrong target, and the actual nearest star in the given constellation (as listed in this paper and our constellation pages) doesn't have its own article. Delete. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Arlo James Barnes 17:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Hey @SevenSpheres, I think it will be better to delete them Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only 'Proxima something' stars are Proxima Centauri and Proxima Ophiuchi. These names might even follow the same logic, but this is not a sufficient valid reason. WP:MADEUP. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    My reasoning was indeed that these names follow the same logic; not because I made them up, but because within the set of stars the English Wikipedia knows about, in each constellation there will be a closest one, so all of these names could have a target out of synonymy. But the set of stars Wikipedia knows about (within the limits of notability and happenstance) is not the same as and does not necessarily contain the set of even the closest stars, so not all such redirects would have a valid target.
    I appreciate SevenSpheres' nomination, hence my agreement above with the proposed action for these cases. If you say it should be trimmed additionally to just the two you mentioned (PlanetStar is the creator of the latter redirect, and the former began as an article from the 2002 outset), then so be it; I now see that WP:R#DELETE states "redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created" (point 8) so this is probably a good example of that rule in the context of astronomical Latin. — Arlo James Barnes 01:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I would propose to the creator Arlo Barnes, that he should try creating these on Wiktionary (wikt:en:) instead. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'll create quotation pages for those I can find attestations for, but as for main namespace entries I think I would run afoul of an inclusion criterion: proxima + the Latin genitive of the constellation name is the expected/grammatical way to use those respective words, not a separate headword. — Arlo James Barnes 00:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    There are now citation pages for the two examples 21 Andromedae mentioned. Arlo James Barnes 20:07, 30 April 2026 (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).

Ballistic Flechette Guns

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

this one is special, because it's funny. at no point does any gun or category of guns ever seem to have been referred to with this name, but in the original doom games, the bfg worked by firing a projectile, and then a fan of additional invisible "tracers" from doomguy's position and in the projectile's direction after said projectile went boom. this could be mistaken for some kind of flechettes by people who have not paid attention to which ammo type the bfg uses, or by people who have only ever seen the bfg in action in the doom comic, where it seems to just fire the invisible tracers in a somewhat less invisible manner. granted, none of this would necessarily imply that "ballistic" or "flechette" could come from different sources than a theoretical person coming up with this name from comically misinterpreted evidence, but eh

...none of this explanation was important, by the way, it's the same case as the other leftover bfg names consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:35, 24 April 2026 (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).

implausible leftover bfg names

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#implausible leftover bfg names

Breezeboot's Frigid Gnasher

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

from everquest, not that you'd know because all mentions of it are long gone, and so is the weapon itself from what i know. it's also not a gun consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:17, 24 April 2026 (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).

Bee Eff Gee

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. Left guide (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

implausible phonetic spelling of an acronym, not enough views, unmentioned, you get the idea by now consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 14:09, 24 April 2026 (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).

Maldives at the 2026 Asian Games

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. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Way too early for this. No discussion of the country's participation on the target article. Can be created much closer to the games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I considered Maldives at the Asian Games as a potential target but that somehow has even less information than the present target, which is an achievement given the current target says only that they will participate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. That user also created a lot of redirects related to the 2026 Asian Games as well. Qby (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2026 (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).

Gamers Nexus

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 💬 09:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. The redirect target contains very little information about what Gamers Nexus actually is. They are probably notable for more than just their beef with Linus Media Group. The fact that the redirect leads to an article about one of Gamers Nexus's main competitors is also likely to confuse readers (see Talk:Linus Media Group#GamersNexus redirect is confusing). Saucy[talk – contribs] 07:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. At minimum, this narrows from all the available content on Wikipedia about Gamers Nexus (given that there's also Newegg#2022 Gamers Nexus RMA and open-box controversy) and would be better served by returning the user to search results, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is enough to support notability for GamersNexus getting its own article. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete agree fully with nom. The name of the channel shouldn't redirect to a single controversy section on another org's article. StartOkayStop (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2026 (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).

List of members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#List of members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

Dumboy

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 Liberian cuisine#Starches. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 08:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Is a redirect to Fufu, but it is not mentioned or explained there how a dumboy is used in creating fufu. --Enyavar (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note this was not tagged or properly formatted until now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Either Retarget (and unlink from) Liberian cuisine#Starches (the only place on en.wp it is mentioned) or Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Per that section it is not the same as Fufu (The cassava or tapioca root is processed and pounded into starchy foods such as fufu (using dried cassava) and dumboy (using boiled cassava).) although some web results imply one is a type of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 04:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2026 (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).

United States Expansionism

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 without prejudice to someone creating an article or DAB. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Greater United States → Manifest destiny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] bundled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12 § Greater America
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dab together: Origins of the War of 1812#American expansionism, Blind nationalism, and American expansionism under Donald Trump; put The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism American nationalism as see also. Skemous (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 04:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no obvious target between "American imperialism" and "Manifest destiny", both concepts that can be described as American expansionism. While "manifest destiny" was used recently by Trump, by and large it's seen as a historical doctrine and not a modern one. A DAB page wouldn't fit either since it would be a form of search index, so the clear outcome is that these redirects ought to be deleted. The search function is a better fit. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE as the redirects are the meaning of the concept of the target article. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Create new article - There should be a new article that discusses this topic. Manifest destiny is supposed to be an article about the term. American imperialism is about the exercise of power outside the borders of the United States. This is a gap in coverage that should be addressed. There should be an article titled American expansionism that follows a similar structure to Chinese expansionism.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    Creating a new article isn't a viable outcome for an RfD unless someone volunteers to draft one before the RfD is closed. If no-one volunteers, then we can either tag the redirect as {{r with possibilities}} or delete the redirect per WP:RETURNTORED. I'm not sure WP:RETURNTORED would apply since it's not true that the proposed targets have virtually no information on the subject; they do have substantial information, just not complete coverage of all facets of the subject. – Scyrme (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    Creating a disambiguation page is creating a new article, in this case a {{dabconcept}}. Originally, one was a redirect to Territorial evolution of the United States. Skemous (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, technically a disambiguation page is an "article" but that's pedantic and obviously not the intended interpretation here. Neither Jason nor I proposed a disambiguation page; as far as I can, only you have done so. A disambiguation page wouldn't really be appropriate here regardless. Disambiguation pages are lists of articles that could plausibly share the same title. The articles mentioned here aren't really that, but rather they are subtopics or distinct topics which intersect/overlap with the topic of American expansionism. – Scyrme (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    A disambiguation page is not an article. Which might be a convenient excuse for removing them from the remit of "AfD" to where they really belong: here. J947 ‡ edits 08:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    American imperialism already discusses the U.S.'s territorial expansions in the 19th and 20th centuries, so I disagree with your contention that the two are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles. Frankly, this seems to be more of an issue of semantics than anything else. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 1 May 2026 (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).

BucureAYti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#BucureAYti

The Needler

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 1#The Needler

Octave twelve

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Back in September, Vox Mando-Guitar was moved from octave twelve in an RM due to me failing to find any proof that the instrument was ever called an "octave twelve". However, the page was redirected to Vox (company) only a day after the move, leaving this double redirect behind. I still can't find any proof that the Vox Mando-Guitar was ever called an "octave twelve", and this redirect gets far less than one hit a day, so it's an unlikely and vague search term with no foreseeable use. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. It's difficult to assess how many hits this actually gets because the stats include the article previously at the title and it hasn't been a redirect for very long. I was able to find some mentions of this name used in reference to the guitar (eg. reverb.com, which mentions it's "sometimes" called an "Octave 12"). This link, or one like it, could be used as a reference to provide a mention, however they're not the best quality sources (for example, reverb.com is principally an online marketplace, though it has "news" page). If this were Octave 12 (with a number, making capitalisation irrelevant) or Octave Twelve (capitalised as a proper noun), then I might consider a redirect appropriate (after adding a referenced mention). With this capitalisation, I favour deletion.
I considered retargeting to Scientific pitch notation, which includes a table of numbered octaves, however that table only goes up to octave ten and even if octave twelve were added it would exceed the limit of human hearing. No instrument would have twelve octaves on it (a piano typically has five), and none would have their octaves tuned so high as to include the twelfth octave as numbered by the table (except perhaps as some sort of weird avant-garde performance, playing music no-one can hear).
If this is not deleted, I'd suggest retargeting instead to Octave, in reference to an octave typically being divided into twelve notes, but honestly even this seems like a stretch.
The only similar numbered octave redirect I was able to find was first octave, which links to a section at octave which appears to have been deleted and was leftover from a merge. Others like octave one, octave two, second octave, etc. don't seem to exist. – Scyrme (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I have retargeted first octave to Helmholtz pitch notation, the target of Contra octave which was created as a redirect to first octave when it used to be an article. Jay 💬 08:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer and Scyrme: ping. Jay 💬 10:09, 19 April 2026 (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! 02:45, 24 April 2026 (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).

German dictator

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a common term for this person and not the only politician who'd match this description (people like Erich Honecker come to mind, but it could also apply in the modern sense to many absolute monarchs). Graham87 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. In practice this is either unambiguous or very clearly the primary topic - literally 100% of results down to the end of page 6 when searching "German dictator" -Wikipedia were for Hitler, and the results included plenty of reliable sources (e.g. The Times, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, History Extra, The Spectator, Syracuse Scholar, Associated Press, New York Times) so the "not a common term" argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. Note the last two sources are from 1934 and 1933 respectively so this is not a new term either. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, as there may not have been many, but Hitler was not the only one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    But he is unquestionably the primary topic for the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete to push back against the incorrect statement they are using it unambiguously. "German dictator" is very much not unambiguous: the lede of Erich Honecker states that he is German and was viewed as a dictator. To save this, it would have to go to a general article but I don't see a good place. List of dictators was deleted and Dictatorship doesn't go into enough details on German dictators. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Just because a term is theoretically ambiguous does not mean all uses of the term in practice are ambiguous. Every single one of the uses on the first few pages of search results was unambiguously referring to Adolf Hitler. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Ludicrously vague and subjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    The evidence shows this is neither. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    As always, WP:PANDORA is actively misleading nonsense that directly contradicts RfD custom and practice. Redirects are judged on their own merits, not on whether someone's crystal ball predicts that someone else may or may create something that may or may not be useful at some unknowable future point. This is a useful, unambiguous and harmless redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    How is it helpful to redirect a generic term to a specific topic? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Although this is theoretically a generic term, in practice there is an entirely unambiguous primary topic. When a plausible search term has a single clear target we gain absolutely nothing by doing anything other than redirecting that term to it's unambiguous target. Literally 100% of actual uses of this term are referring to Adolf Hitler, how is it helpful to force people using it to navigate via search results (which may or may not contain the article they clearly want, and may be several clicks/taps away) is unnecessarily harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to a disambiguation page that lists all German dictators per WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete Dictator of Germany as well. I think this kind of a case like Austrian Painter; even though Adolf Hitler may be what first comes to mind, it should ideally point to a list like List of German dictators or List of dictators of Germany, since multiple Germans were dictators; there is List of Germans, but that is too general. Mathguy2718 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    He's not on the first that comes to mind he is the unambiguous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2026 (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).

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI