Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2026.

Current U.S. state representative redirects

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 - WP:TRAINWRECK. Basically, since WikiOriginal-9 performed this series of edits to the nomination after the relist, which affected multiple redirects (including adding a redirect), and didn't mention these adjustments in a comment, there's no real accurate way to confirm the comments prior to the relist are completely valid anymore. No prejudice against a new nomination, but this close is the equivalent of throwing WP:TNT at this discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

These should be red links so people know they need articles. The Wyoming House of Representatives is particularly egregious. It appears as if every rep has an article but there are actually 12 without articles. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that premise, considering we have tens of thousands of redirects for individuals to a relevant table such as these. Obviously that's not a reason not to delete them, but the tables provide relevant information, making the redirects useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirects to tables are usually for people who aren't notable. The 12 links in question at Wyoming House of Representatives all point back to the same page. The Wyoming House of Representatives navbox should have 12 red links, not 0. Moondragon21 literally just finished creating the last 7 US Rep red links. However, they have not yet noticed all of the ones above who do not have articles. I won't ping them here for risk of canvassing though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirects don't have to be about something that's not inherently notable, that's why we have the r from possibilities template. Redirects point to a location with relevant information. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
I understand the premise here, and I am always open to the idea of redlinks being made into actual pages. I have certainly created multiple pages for state legislators in prominent states such as California and Nevada. However, in the case of smaller states like Wyoming, it is unclear to me that most legislators meet notability by default. The biggest example of this would be New Hampshire, where there are 400 state representatives: WP policy clearly shows that these are not all people notable for pages. If someone looks up such a name, however, after reading it in an article, seeing an endorsement, or reading a social media post that they wish to fact check, it is useful to have the redirect come back to this page. PickleG13 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
US state reps are notable per WP:NPOL. Every New Hampshire rep already has an article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I have read that policy many times, but for some reason I thought that there was a New Hampshire exception; at one time in the past, at least, not all of them had them because of their sheer number and lack of notability outside of their smaller office. In that case, that significantly increases the argument for returning to redirects for these nineteen, and I would be happy to help turn them into pages in any case. PickleG13 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree that we should make these redlinks instead of redirects. It's pretty impossible to tell who has a page and who doesn't, and in addition, when any of these legislators are no longer in office, redirects will make no sense. These people all meet notability criteria, so a redlink helps better communicate what is needed. They all are established as notable enough to have a page and the redirects are honestly deceptive.
Honestly shocked that one from MN slipped through the cracks here, the Minnesota Wikipedians are rabid. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
You make a great point about people when they're no longer in office; redirects should be able to be permanent, like pages more broadly. Hanukkah just ended and Christmas is about to begin, so some editors will likely have less time, but at least turning these from redirects to stubs shouldn't take much time at all. PickleG13 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I have started this process of getting pages instead of redirects, so redlinks are never necessary and yet we fix this problem. I have created stub pages for Max Rymer and Tracy Sharp. Rolf Olsen (American politician) and Wayne Farrin already exist, so I redirected Rolf A. Olsen and Wayne K. Farrin there. Happy Holidays! PickleG13 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Bill Conerly now has a page as well, removing the need there. It is a stub page in all senses, with references, external links, categories, but no additional information. Anyone with expertise on the Florida House of Representatives would be a great help here! PickleG13 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirected Lucien J.B. Daigle to Lucien Daigle, where there was already a page on this person. - Andre Engels (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Undid my change, as it is said that I should not change the redirect target. Still a vote to do this change, and to change William R. Tuell to a redirect to William Tuell. Why shouldn't I change the redirect target if the case is so obvious (at least in my opinion)? - Andre Engels (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of these redirects have been overwritten with articles at this point, and at least one redirect has an alternative biographical article identified that could potentially be a redirection option. In other words, someone may need to go through this nomination with a fine-toothed comb to see which redirects may need to be removed from this nomination, or just wholly close the discussion to WP:TRAINWRECK at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
I have removed Jayme Lien, Gary Brown (Wyoming politician), Bill Conerly, Wayne K. Farrin, Rolf A. Olsen, Max Rymer, and Tracy Sharp from the list as they have been articlefied. Rusalkii (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Arthur Kevin Mingo should be retargeted to Arthur Mingo. मल्ल (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Article created for Gary Friedmann. मल्ल (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Article created for Regan Deering. मल्ल (talk) 16:47, 6 January 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).

Professional Master's in Social Sciences and Humanities

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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This title hosted an article for about 7 years prior to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Master's in Social Sciences and Humanities. The aforementioned discussion resulted in "merge to Council of Graduate Schools", but this redirect is not even mentioned there anymore. In addition, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target article either. Either way, without specific mention, this redirect is unclear since both it is not mentioned, and the redirect itself doesn't specify whether it is an example of the current target article or an example of a Master of Science. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 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).

Diplôme des Etudes Approfondies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Diplôme des Etudes Approfondies

Traubendorn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Traubendorn

Laurier d'Alexandrie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Laurier d'Alexandrie

Dragon City Mall

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Dragon City Mall

Enigma I (Comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Enigma I (Comics)

The Shacks

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) 04:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest deleting this redirect. I like this band, but they seem to only be slightly notable because their cover of "This Strange Effect" was used in an iPhone commercial about eight years ago. Their name is not mentioned in the target article anymore; and I would not suggest creating an article for them because they do not appear to have ever charted anywhere. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Just notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages. Jay 💬 06:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 5 January 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).

Run, Riddler, Run

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Run, Riddler, Run

Adolpha

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Adolpha

Getaway (upcoming film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Getaway (upcoming film)

The Beautiful Game (upcoming film)

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. (non-admin closure) Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target released over a year ago, redirect has minimal page views. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Lost its purpose. Svartner (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 04:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. In what world is this minimal pageviews? J947 ‡ edits 00:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: 100+ views in last quarter of 2025. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep This is clearly still getting views. Not a lot of views, but also too many views to be counted as merely "minimal pageviews". User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:18, 6 January 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).

Gaur Banga FC

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. Feel free to recreate if a mention develops. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This team is not mentioned at the Bengal Super League and when searching for it on the internet, I can find practically no information on it. It seems from its history that it might be related to JHR Royal City FC, but we do not have an article for that either. Casablanca 🪨(T) 20:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Redirect creator has now created the JHR Royal City FC. Jay 💬 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    This appears to be unmentioned there, so I'd still be ok with deletion, but a relist could also make sense given the article was written since the RfD was opened. Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 6 January 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).

William Beaumont Hospital, Grosse Pointe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#William Beaumont Hospital, Grosse Pointe

Brigham Young University's

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Brigham Young University's

Unmentioned/obscure Eragon redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Unmentioned/obscure Eragon redirects

1946 Massachusetts's 11th congressional district election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#1946 Massachusetts's 11th congressional district election

Chester A. Arthur's

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Chester A. Arthur's

Sdrawkcab

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Sdrawkcab

OKD Ostrava

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#OKD Ostrava

Fast math

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Fast math

Diabeto

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Diabeto

Panembahan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Panembahan

John B. Salamone

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#John B. Salamone

Portuguese creole of Tugo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Portuguese creole of Tugo

History of the Jews in Svalbard

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 superseded by discussion below (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

In line with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#History of the Jews in Svalbard, there is no information in the target page related to the redirect topic. CMD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The same applies to Åland and the Faroe Islands. If there is a topic at any of these, WP:REDLINKs would indicate the need for development. CMD (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Chipmunkdavis: I'm afraid I bet you by 3 minutes bro . I can add the link to the previous discussion to my rationale, though. Place Clichy (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    That discussion rationale may apply to some of the other entries too. I didn't know this was such a large mass creation, I just saw these 3 pop up. Thanks for the larger nom. CMD (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
     Done. For readability and effectiveness of discussions, would you agree to withdraw this and discuss at the group nomination? Place Clichy (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Sure. CMD (talk) 13:03, 5 January 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).

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you can now withdraw your withdrawal. Some editors object to discuss all redirects listed together and prefer smaller discussions just like this one. You may therefore proceed with this discussion as originally nominated! Place Clichy (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Ethnic group redirects

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 withdrawn. Several new nominations have been started at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
More redirects

A flurry of redirects leading to nowhere just created by a user who makes contentious edits on racial topics. Not sure what the intent is, probably blue-linking templates. This is misleading as there isn't any related content at the targets. See previous discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#History of the Jews in Svalbard. @Chipmunkdavis and Mazca: ping contributors. Place Clichy (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. N.B. were not nominated some redirects created by the same user in the same time frame which actually lead to related content, e.g. Native Americans in Omaha, Nebraska → Ethnic groups in Omaha, Nebraska#Native Americans. Place Clichy (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Good grief! I don't think it's worth checking every single redirect here to see if the target is appropriate. This may be a situation where you need to grab an admin or go to WP:ANI, frankly, regarding this user's behaviour. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 12:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Honestly I wouldn't do that without first inviting a user to discuss on their talk page. My invitation to come participate in this discussion plays this role. Place Clichy (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Too many. I spotchecked a few of these redirects and they seemed either fine or questionable but not terrible. Although some are poor, many of these redirects are mentioned, some in detail, and many should be retargeted to better targets. Loads aren't even race-related. What's with all the assuming bad faith? Even if there is some hidden nefarious motivation that prompted the creation of these redirects, the helpful ones should be kept. If so, this nomination will without question become a WP:TRAINWRECK. There's no way all the redirects will get the attention they deserve, many being highly plausible search terms. Place Clichy, I advise you to withdraw and nominate in smaller batches of 1 to 5 redirects (preferably one at a time). J947 ‡ edits 21:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Please not one at a time. I think that batches of five at a time would be best. I personally find it very obtrusive when tons of similar redirects are nominated in batches of one and I would essentially have to reply with the same thing to each of them. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    As for the assumption of bad faith, I apologize, I may have been a bit overwhelmed by the staggering amount of redirects. Place's assessment of the editor is entirely correct, however. Most of their edits are regarding race, with a focus on Jews and topics like White pride, White supremacy, and White flight. Many of their edits in the topic area have been reverted for one reason or another, and they do not seem interested in WP:BRD because they have not made any edits on any talk page.
    This may not be reason enough to assume bad faith, but I hope you understand why it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing, especially paired with the mass creation of dubious redirects. At the very least, I think the user's behavior could help to be assessed by an admin. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 23:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    @J947: I checked dozens of these redirects and their targets, and did not find many with related content at the target. I did find some with actual content at the target in another section, which I retargeted (, , ) and of course 30+ redirects created the same day by the same user which I did not nominate (e.g. Ghanaians in London → Ethnic groups in London#Ghanaians), so I hope you won't assume bad faith on my part. It is very visible even from the links above, without opening the links, when they do or don't link to a section about the redirect's topic. Note that I don't consider a single word occurrence, e.g. Jews or Latinos appearing once in a demographics table, to be related content worth a redirect: I expect a section, a paragraph or at least a sentence introducing the topic.
    The only ones not race- or ethnic-related are the 26 Fauna ones, but they are part of the same reckless wave of editing and share the same symptoms: blue-linking of a template and no content at the target.
    Maybe they could be discussed in several discussions if they were created over several months but they were created in a single day, which is one symptom of reckless editing. The other symptoms are, as stated above by MK, the number of reverted edits by this user on contentious topics (a sample: , , , ), not followed by talk page messages despite invitation, but often by more similar edits on the same pages. Everyone gets reverted once in a while, and I know from experience that some users rarely come to talk either because they are uncomfortable with their English or because they dislike confrontation. However when this happens, you just don't come back adding more fuel on a blazing fire.
    I wouldn't call these edits bad faith, or even vandalism. I consider them reckless, somewhere between WP:NOTHERE and WP:DUCK, with a hint of WP:RGW. I think there is an open door for a user starting like this to adapt their style of editing and contribute more in the line of the funding principles of Wikipedia, we have seen many go this route. In this spirit I would welcome the user to give their opinion in this discussion.
    However, considering that we can't nominate group discussions to clean the mayhem created by such reckless editing would create a systemic bias in favour of chaos, and we don't wanna do that. Place Clichy (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe I've just got lucky, but most of those I've checked have been good redirects. I just looked at five now. Fauna of Arizona → Fauna of the United States is clearly a helpful redirect, although perhaps there's a better target or perhaps search results are good enough that it should be deleted in favour of encouraging article creation per WP:RETURNTORED. White people in Somalia → White Africans of European ancestry also redirects to appropriate information, though it should probably be refined to the #Somalia section and again retargetting / returning to red might be appropriate options. Asturian Mexicans → Spaniards in Mexico also finds relevant content. Danes in California → White Americans in California is less helpful, but it allows the reader to access the number of Danes in California. Not all redirects require detailed discussion. Albanians in Mitrovica → Demographics of Mitrovica is just a good redirect. The ones linked from templates and/or not mentioned are questionable, but the others are pretty helpful. If these redirects were created individually, no one would contest their one-by-one examination. All of them have different circumstances, so all bundling them together's going to result in is a mess.
    Creation of redirects could be a good way to funnel this user into positively contributing to the encyclopaedia. Deleting them all, regardless of their helpfulness, won't help this user realise which types of redirects are good and which are bad. J947 ‡ edits 01:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    Realised they're probably rapidly creating redirects to game extended confirmed. In which case, the redirects will probably be G5-able soon enough. Ah well. J947 ‡ edits 01:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for looking these up.
    • White people in Somalia → White Africans of European ancestry – I withdraw this one, retargeted to White Africans of European ancestry#Somalia
    • Asturian Mexicans → Spaniards in Mexico – One sentence: "The Asturians are a very large community that has a long history in Mexico, dating from colonial times to the present." This IMHO not worth a redirect. Asturias are a region in Spain, not really a diaspora identity in their own right.
    • Danes in California → White Americans in California – Typical case. The sentence "Most people who identify as white in California say their heritage is Mexican, German, Irish, English, Italian, French, Spanish, Scottish, Polish, Salvadoran, Swedish, Portuguese, Dutch, Armenian, or British. There are also sizable Iranian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek, Hungarian, Austrian, Danish, Lithuanian, Finnish, Lebanese, Ukrainian, white Australian, Croatian, Serbian, Slovak, and Albanian populations in California." and the table of ancestry by origin are IMHO not worth a redirect. Nothing special about Danes in this article. Also, although not the primary reason to delete this redirect, the target chosen is weird: associating whiteness to national origins is controversial to say the least. Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Albanians in Mitrovica → Demographics of Mitrovica – Two sentences plus a table entry: "The city is multi-ethnic though Albanians form the absolute majority. [...] Its ([Southern Mitrovica's]) ethnic composition is made of Albanians 69,497, Ashkali 647, Roma 528, Turks 518, Bosniaks 416, Gorani 23, Serbs 14, Egyptians 6 and others 43.". I could live with that, but IMHO neither the article nor any part of it are about the Albanian population in the city. Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Fauna of Arizona → Fauna of the United States – There are several mentions of species living in Arizona in the #Western United States section, and, in the table of 445 mammals at #List of species in the United States, 31 mention Arizona in their distribution area, while others use terms such as Southwest or desert, one saying "excluding Arizona". One could argue that this could be linked to the #Western United States section. However, seen how content is scattered across the entire article whose topic is clearly about the United states as a whole, I believe it is more misleading to fill with blue links all leading to the same article template {{United States topic|prefix=Fauna of}} as it appears at the bottom of Fauna of Florida or the list of links at Fauna of the United States § Articles by area. Weighting the interest vs. the nuisance, I think that red links are more useful than redirects here, in the absence of incoming links except templates.
    As you put is, the main motive seems to be farming edits for extended confirmed status. Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    And here we are. Place Clichy (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I nominated 3 of these in a separate (now closed as redundant) nomination. The target article History of the Jews in Europe had zero information relating to the Faroe Islands, Svalbard, and Åland. There is no reason to believe additional care was placed into the other redirects. Some might coincidentally be helpful, if so they could always be created by someone else later. These are all new, so they are clearly not in use. Keeping in case a couple are more helpful than not is burdening volunteer time. CMD (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all without prejudice. This is simply far, far, far too many redirects to evluate in one go, particularly as they cover so many disperate topics. If there are any that acutally should be deleted then renominate them individually or in small, focused groups that include a rationale specific to that redirect/group. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    The creation of these redirects was just one, big, diruptive group of edits, though. The inability to discuss this kind of disruptive edits, implied by your argument, would create a bias in favour of vandals. Place Clichy (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Given that there are redirects in the set that others have identified as good your statement that The creation of these redirects was just one, big, diruptive group of edits is incorrect - good redirects are not vandalism, regardless of who created them. However it they were vandalism, we have tools like mass delete and mass rollback to address that and so there is also no inability to discuss [...] disruptive edits, it's just that consensus to use them is unlikely when there would be a lot of babies thrown out with the bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Even a broken clock shows the right time sometimes. The correct redirects are not part of this nomination. It is pretty easy to find them: they target a section relevant to the topic of the redirect. This somehow discourages me to fight vandalism. Place Clichy (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    There are multiple correct redirects that are part of this nomination, see J947's examples - even the ones you disagree with evidence the need for discussion. Once again, these creations were not vandalism and you should be discouraged from treating it as such. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    I'm happy to withdraw any item for which there are objections, as I have done already. I answered J947's examples and as they did not answer back, I guess that my answer suits them, which is that all cited but one are indeed illegitimate redirects. I'd be happy to withdraw them if there are more objections. I do not treat this as vandalism. I called it reckless editing though. In fact I assumed good faith, it is J947 who cited gaming extended confirm. Vandalism is worth revert and ANI. Reckless editing is worth discussion such as this one. Place Clichy (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    I did not reply since your answer, going into detailed and distinct arguments on 5 randomly chosen redirects, aptly demonstrated my point that lumping all these redirects together is unwise. I disagree quite strongly about some of your conclusions concerning the individual redirects, but that should wait for the unbundling. J947 ‡ edits 23:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all without prejudice per Thryduulf and similar statements made by others, and findings that indicate some of these are appropriate. I would suggest an initial nomination of ≈5 that are the most egregious and/or are closely related. Though the results of one bundled nomination won't necessarily be definitive, the discussion and outcome there will inform subsequent nominations. Larger batches may be appropriate down the line iff they have been thoroughly vetted. Borderline cases should be generally be nominated individually or left in peace.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • procedurally close, pretty much regardless of consensus about each given redirect here. i don't necessarily think this is inherently gonna be a train wreck, but it's definitely gonna cause some technical pain. i'll recommend a maximum of 10 at a time for stuff that might be deleted for the same reason, and 20 at a time for what might be weak or procedural. 5 is definitely too little, even to just start with. the creator's contribs, those creations included, do seem like gaming though, so i'll recommend rubbing some eyeballs all over them either way, at which point i'll... actually oppose a g5, since we'd need evidence of socking or sanction violation first consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    You're right, 5 is pretty low. I wouldn't impose a firm upper limit but I would caution anyone re-nominating these that the more redirects are included the more work it is for other editors to verify the problem(s) and the greater the likelihood of a train wreck. When seeking to address a large number of problematic redirects, it can be helpful to start small to build consensus and adjust the approach as needed based on feedback from the first couple nominations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn as nominator, in favor of smaller batches of related redirects. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 12 January 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).

N757A

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 💬 16:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

N757A is the tail number of a Boeing 757 prototype, later repurposed as the F-22 Flying Testbed. This redirect is an {{R from move}} which exists after its creator apparently changed their mind, taking an article in their sandbox about the said 757 prototype and converting it to an article about an Airbus A350 prototype. The latter article has since been redirected to the A350 article, leaving us with this misleading redirect which should either be deleted (my preference) or, conceivably, redirected to Boeing 757#Government, military, and corporate where the flying testbed is mentioned (though its tail number is not). Rosbif73 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - not something someone is likely to search for, and additionally the current redirect is completely wrong and useless to everyone. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - The Boeing 757 does not mention N757A by name. Unless the article is changed to do so, I don't see any reason to redirect it. - ZLEA TǀC 18:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 9 January 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).

Isolasi DNA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Isolasi DNA

Fire at will

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Fire at will

Interlude (Joji song)

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) 05:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Vague, could refer to Yukon (Interlude) or "Worldstar Money (interlude)" from In Tongues. मल्ल (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, this doesn't actually appear to be the title of a song. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 6 January 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).

Memories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"Memories" could be potentially ambiguous, so the redirect could perhaps need to be retargeted to Memory (disambiguation). GTrang (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Keepish. This is a term that's often used in the plural, so if the singular is primary, I think the plural probably is too. And besides, there are quite a few incoming links already, so there's a lot of cleanup for not much benefit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 07:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Human memories seem like the primary topic here to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment. What's more likely, that a reader types in "Memories" and wants to read about the mental faculty called memory, or that they are trying to find a work that is titled "Memories"? In my opinion it's the latter. So here's what I'd like to see instead: Memories is its own disambig page with works titled "Memories" (and naturally there's a link at the top to Memory in case readers really did want to read about the mental faculty of memory). Memory (disambiguation) only contains titles called "Memory". And the two disambig pages link to each other in case the reader can't remember if the title was plural or singular. I believe this is much more intuitive.
At the very least, if we change nothing about the current arrangement, the disambig hanote on Memory absolutely should make it clear that the linked disambig page lists articles with "Memories" in their title. Because right now, the reader looking for, say, a movie called "Memories" is redirected to Memory with no explanation of how to get to a list of "Memories" works and find what they're looking for. --Iritscen (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Convert to dab page per Iritscen. Most people are likely to be looking for a specific artistic work rather than the topic of memory itself. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{r from plural}}, regardless of whether Memory (disambiguation) is split. (If it is split, it should be to Memories (disambiguation), not the base title.) Any potential confusion can be avoided by updating the hatnote to note that memories is a redirect to the article. - Eureka Lott 19:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PLURALPT, Google suggests the current target is primary and would clearly be by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the thinking here but I'm more persuaded that Memory is the primary topic. The hatnote at Memory could be updated to include the plural spelling Memories; that may improve navigation/reduce 'surprise' for some readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as plural form --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 9 January 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).

Bobert (name)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Bobert (name)

Swift Sword

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 disambiguate. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Judging by what links to it, and not mentioned anywhere except for the lede in the target, this should be deleted disambiguated per below. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate as an ambiguous term without a primary topic. Draft disambiguation page started below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 11 January 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 female secretaries of state in the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13#List of female secretaries of state in the United States

NAJC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#NAJC

Aldelight

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13#Aldelight

Balloon party game

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Balloon party game

Peter II of Kongo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Peter II of Kongo

Simility

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Simility

The Lonesome Place (short story)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No disambig needed in title. Only one The Lonesome Place. GobsPint (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Are {{R from move}} required to be kept when there is no utilization?GobsPint (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. @GobsPint: to answer your question: yes, because even if there are no internal links, there may be external links (i.e. websites other than Wikipedia linking to it). As well, for this one, there are some internal links from old discussions, and those links ought to be made to remain functional as well.
    They aren't required to be kept, however. If there's some other problem with the redirect (I can't think of an example off the top of my head), then {{R from move}}s can still be deleted. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 11:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 6 January 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).

Alqueire (measure of land)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No disambig needed for Alqueire. GobsPint (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

How so...there are no mainspace links.GobsPint (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
That's true, but we can't account for the possibility of incoming links from other sites. Given the low number of page views, it doesn't look like there are many (if any), but deletion wouldn't provide any benefits. See WP:RFD#K4. - Eureka Lott 18:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
google shows zero external links (as reflected in the zero pageviews). What is the benefit of keeping an unused redirect?GobsPint (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless. BD2412 T 14:44, 6 January 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

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks