Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2026.

Ceratiomyxa

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As this is a WP:RETURNTORED nomination I have not unlinked the deleted redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted for the same reasons as my nomination below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete on the same basis as the linked nomination. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:41, 4 June 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).

Centropyxiella species

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 04:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

These are redirects from a species to its genus. Accepted species are presumed to be notable per WP:NSPECIES, so I think these should be deleted to return them to red. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominator - in the absence of any useful information at the target article, I agree that a return to red is preferable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:41, 4 June 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).

SonntagsZeitung

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 10#SonntagsZeitung

Androgynos

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9#Androgynos

🪐

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. I'm closing this a little "early" since relisted discussions don't have to run for another week. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This emoji visually represents Saturn way more than it does plantes in general, so people who would look this emoji up presumably would want Saturn User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  • It's officially named as ringed planet, This vaguely Saturn-like orb was proposed as a stand-alone planet emoji to represent all planets. LIrala (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A, where it's listed in the table. This is U+1FA90 🪐 RINGED PLANET. This is why you don't redirect emoji to the meaning -- is this planet? planetary rings? Saturn? who knows. Emojis should redirect to any sort of info we have about the emoji themselves. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This was retargetted from Ring system to Planet in a 2021 RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep due to it meaning to represent all planets. If someone specifically wants Saturn, it's prominently linked in the lede and the main picture's caption. If someone specifically wants a ringed planet, that's covered in the article as well. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would have suggested Ringed planet as an alternative, but that is a redirect to Ring system, which is one step too far removed for my liking. I have no doubt that for some readers the association is Saturn specifically but this is by no means universal nor is it clear this is even a majority of uses. It very often refers to planets or even more generally to anything space related. It's doubtful readers are looking for the Unicode information contained at Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A if they search this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ring system as {{r double redirect avoided}} of ringed planet. The textual definition takes precedence as how the unicode character is displayed may vary wildly. Second choice would be retarget per Deacon Vorbis. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Even though I didn't advocate for this target in the last RfD it's clear to me now that this is used in practice to mean "planet" far more often than it is used to mean "ringed planet" specifically and Ring system would be a surprising destination for most users. The technical pages should be targets of emoji redirects only when there is no more informative target, that is not the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep because emojis can look a lot of different ways depending on operating system and we shouldn't be more specific than the unicode naming and commentary, which specifically describe this emoji as being able to stand in for any planet. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per others and Emojipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I generally consider myself an emoji-redirect skeptic. The ring is presumably because of the need to communicate that it's a planet, not just any sphere. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 3 June 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).

Monica Warren (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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) 04:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Implausible redirect. Per Spider-Man: Homecoming, this character was only referred to as "Ms. Warren". Not mentioned at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z, and also not mentioned at target, as this redirect originally targeted Features of Spider-Man media#Midtown High School in other media. Note: May have been confused with Monica Warren, which is a redirect to Jackal (Marvel Comics character)#Early career. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete as original nominator for speedy deletion. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This redirect serves no encyclopedic purpose and is misleading. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:12, 2 June 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).

Poogie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Poogie

Hornless unicorn

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. The original RfD was a long and convoluted one and the suggestion to create and target this section made rather late in the game; I am comfortable overriding that (much better attended) discussion with this one) as without that suggestion I would have probably closed it as a no-consensus. Should this section be reinstated via normal editorial process then this redirect can be reinstated as well. Rusalkii (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the absolutely atrocious section this targeted from Unicorn. To recap, there were two examples of artwork depicted, both extremely dubious -- one had a source which directly contradicted the claim, along with a blog; the other was a Spanish-language source which had an offhand comment about a juvenile unicorn in a mural whose horn hadn't formed yet. This is...not what should be in an article about the mythical creature.

Seeing how it's not mentioned, it should be deleted. Lest you want to point it back to horse, this was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 8#Hornless unicorn, where there was at least a consensus that it shouldn't point there, but wound up getting retargeted to Unicorn, which no longer has a mention of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, this redirect is unnecessary at best, or simply a joke at worst. TNstingray (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • That section was created during the discussion in the previous RfD (in which I voted Delete, as the section was created a day after I voted). The redirect would be useful if we had an article about Unicorns in art or cultural representations of unicorns, where the hornless ones get a mention. As it's been a week since the nom deleted the section, and there has been no opposition so far, Delete. It may be recreated when/if relevant content changes happen. Jay 💬 16:22, 8 June 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).

Women's Department

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Way too broad for a redirect Finnfrog99 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 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).

Babbo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Babbo

Ellie Emberson

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. There was no opposition to deletion, however the aspect of notability was not decided. Jay 💬 16:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ellie Emberson is no longer a councillor for Coley ward, and is therefore no longer referred to on that article. The redirect is therefore more confusing than helpful. It needs to be either replaced by an article (but Ellie doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOL) or deleted. chris_j_wood (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RETURNTORED; this politician's notability can be discussed if necessary should anyone subsequently create an article. Also note that there's a homonymous athlete , though at a glance she doesn't seem to meet WP:NATH yet. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 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).

Fucking (copulation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 26#Fucking (copulation)

Andromorph

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 💬 05:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No use of the term andromorph or anything similar at the target page - I'm not really sure what the redirect creator's rationale was, honestly, as I see no obvious connection between this term and the concept of anthropomorphism. The word "andromorph" isn't defined in any major dictionaries that I know of, but Wiktionary defines it as An organism with male physical characteristics; male mimic. In biology, this term is used to refer to organisms that exhibit traits typical to males of their species while having typical female genitalia and/or chromosomes (as in common in some polymorphic insects). We have a (rather poor) article for gynomorph, a closely related but opposite term, but I don't think that is a very good option for a redirect so I would suggest a WP:RETURNTORED. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikt:andromorph? Web-julio (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
No need to create a wikt redirect unless this wrong redirect is repeatedly recreated. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
The creator was probably thinking along the lines of Android (robot), although they were apparently mistaken to do so. I would just delete, to RTR. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 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).

Obama bin Laden

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Obama bin Laden

Government of Europe

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. 10 targets were suggested in this month-long discussion. What was clear was the current target of European Commission was not appropriate. There was no attempt to disambiguate, however a list page was seen as equivalent to resolving any ambuiguity for the reader. Some participants were clear on which targets should not be considered, hence I didn't find any of the suggested targets standing out in a majority. As a compromise, I am retargeting to the target of European Government. This topic will have to be revisited, but the next time, the two redirects can be bundled together as they will now be in sync. Jay 💬 05:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Can also refer to European Parliament and European Council, suggest retarget to European Union#Governance or disambiguate A1Cafel (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Bodies of the European Union and Euratom (or Institutions of the European Union as a second choice) as the appropriate broad-concept article, although I'll note for the record that the EU does not encompass all of Europe (which doesn't have a true continent-wide government). Duckmather (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate as there are a number of relevant articles and, as said above, Europe is bigger than the EU. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    @SamWilson989: What would you suggest disambiguating between? And why not retarget to an existing list? If you want a list, there's also List of intergovernmental organizations#Europe (although if I understand correctly, the only ones that actually act in a government-like way are the European Union and, to a lesser extent, the European Economic Area and the Council of Europe). Duckmather (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    It's a difficult one. I think your suggestion is a good one - it's probably got everything that someone searching "Government of Europe" could be looking for. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely. I don't think "Government of Europe" is at all analogous to any existing regulatory or governmental body, including the European Union or European Commission. Because of this, I would disagree with anyone claiming that it's most logical redirect would be to any one of these bodies. I would think anybody searching this term or coming across this term does not, in fact, have this in mind - I suggest deletion as it's a useless redirect page. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of intergovernmental organizations § Europe, per Duckmather's suggestion, which lists all the various intergovernmental organisations which govern various aspects of shared European policy and regulations including in and beyond the EU. Redirecting to a list handles the ambiguity adequately. This is a very well used redirect and not all readers can be expected to already be familiar with factual details of how Europe is governed, and presumably they're searching to learn more. I disagree with HarvardJock that searchers would not have the EU or EC in mind. There are many people who are ignorant of the details or who are loose with terminology, and these readers would benefit from being directed to the articles they may have in mind and which may leave them better informed. The only other target I can think of which isn't covered by the list is Federal Europe, which discusses a hypothetical shared Europe state and federal government. I'm unsure if that's stretch, but it can be linked to in a hatnote (such as {{see also}} or {{redirect}}) if other editors agree it's a plausible target. – Scyrme (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    Note, I think European Government, which is a redirect to Institutions of the European Union, should share the same target. It should probably be bundled with this nomination. There is also Government of European Union which redirects to European Commission; this should not be bundled, but is worth mentioning since Government of Europe can be interpreted as an (inaccurate/imprecise) abbreviation of Government of the European Union. – Scyrme (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Europe#Politics? Dudzcar (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget (where?) or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 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).

Israeli (nation)

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. There was opposition to deletion, however there was agreement that the target of Israel is not right. There were suggestions to target Israelis instead, and I'll be retargeting there. Jay 💬 22:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This was created as an unreferenced article about the (religious) Jewish people as a nation on 12 Sep. 2009 and BLARed on the same day; not sure if the page history is relevant/important enough to keep; if this was a mere redirect with no other history, I would boldly !vote delete as nobody would type this rather than Israeli nation or Israel (nation). 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Target wouldn't be surprising and the redirect has non-negligible traffic suggesting either it is a plausible search or that there are incoming linking from somewhere (WP:RKEEP#4), possibly from external sites. I don't see a point in restoring the previous article to contest the BLAR from over a decade ago at AfD as it clearly wouldn't survive AfD. The content is highly dubious stuff regarding Kabbalah, all unreferenced. The only viable options at AfD would be to redirect or delete the title, which is something we can settle at RfD. – Scyrme (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Retarget to Israelis per my replies to J947 below. – Scyrme (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    actually, if restored, it would be speediable as a1 (which is what it was tagged as pre-blar), so let's worry about that a little less than usual consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 15:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's very likely to presume people would be searching for the nationality, in which case it's reasonable to redirect to the Israel page as it covers essentially the same topic. People searching for this particular nationality should be redirected to the nation itself, it's only logical and proper for site standards. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Isn't the Israeli nation Israelis, not Israel? J947 ‡ edits 00:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    "Nation" is ambiguous in that it can refer to either a nationality or to a nation-state. Intuitively, I think the latter is more likely since "Israelis" are a nation so saying "Israeli nation" is a bit redundant, but I don't feel strongly about this. However, Russian nation is a redirect to Russians not Russian Federation, so maybe it would be better to retarget for consistency? Are there counter examples? I wouldn't object to retargeting to Israelis if others favour it. It's easy to navigate from one article to the other, either way. – Scyrme (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    Actually, thinking about it, redirecting consistently to nationalities is better approach since whether a particular state is a nation-state or not can be contentious. The Russian Federation would also be a bad target for Russian nation, since its federal republics have their own titular nationalities (on paper; in practice, the national autonomy of the republics has been eroded). Israel isn't really comparable, but in general it's just less messy if "[demonym] nation" etc. redirects go to nationalities. – Scyrme (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why are we still here? An Israeli is a person, and disambiguating as nation makes no sense. Or it's simply an adjective describing something as being from or associated with Israel, and disambiguating it as nation makes no sense. This would be akin to Swede (nation) or Swedish (nation), for example. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's not absurdly unlikely. Israel (nation) makes perfect sense. Israeli nation makes perfect sense. Israelis (nation) makes perfect sense. Israeli (nation) is sandwiched in between, and because of that initially appears to make more sense than it does. For that reason, it's a plausible misnomer from either of those three search terms. Hence the pageviews. J947 ‡ edits 23:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    "It's not absurdly unlikely." Oh yes it is; no one's looking for this. "Israeli nation" makes sense, but is useless. Israelis (nation) does not make sense any more than Swedes (nation) does, which is none at all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    If it was "absurdly unlikely" multiple editors would not have recommended keeping or retargetting it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    That's...what we call in the biz, a non sequitur. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    No, it's a directly relevant refutation of your incorrect hyperbole. Redirects that are both "absurdly unlikely" and nominated at RFD swiftly get multiple recommendations to delete and no recommendations for different courses of action. Multiple editors acting in good faith simply do not recommend keeping redirects that are absurdly unlikely search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    How would you explain the pageviews then? J947 ‡ edits 00:57, 5 June 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).

First Adhikari ministry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#First Adhikari ministry

Mascot of an evil corporation

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) — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 15:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Both vague and violates WP:NPOV, quote is currently mentioned on the article, but it is cited by IMDb. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirects don't have to be neutral, but they should make sense as to why they exist, and this one doesn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Probably delete if no other reference can be found. The page mentions that the redirect is of a parodical nature (tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}) and that Disney acquired the media of origin (although this may be improper synthesis as a direct mention of both together is not referenced). Xeroctic (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SomeRailfan (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deacon Vorbis. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target explains that it's a quote from The Simpsons Movie. With the provided context it does makes sense as to why it exists. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me; I've gone ahead and deleted it for being sourced only to IMDB and for lack of secondary commentary about it. And side note, even if it were still there, that's what the search feature is for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This could reasonably be discussed at the target; the fact that it happened to be cited only to IMDB seems a bit of a red herring as Google Scholar suggests several viable sources that mention this line. (I have not looked into them closely, just noting that they seem to exist.) But mentioned or not, citable or not, I find myself at a loss to envision a scenario in which this is actually a helpful redirect or corresponds to anything under either WP:REDIRECTPURPOSE or WP:RFD#KEEP. -- Visviva (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as Deacon's removals (twice) were immediately reverted, and more sources added. Jay 💬 09:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jay. If someone thinks this shouldn't be mentioned in the article then they need to discuss that on the article talk page. If there is a consensus in favour of removal then this redirect can be revisited at that point, but while there is a mention this is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is well known enough to stand as an {{R from quotation}}. It needn't be removed from the article, but makes for a poor redirect IMO. --BDD (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: more useful than search results and not ambiguous, so RHARMFUL and WP:R#K5 apply. Note also significant pageviews. J947 ‡ edits 05:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete. even with sources, this is the equivalent of having steamed clams as a redirect to hamburger because The Simpon™ had a joke about that once. the only readers this will serve are simpsons fans looking for the joke. results were surprisingly vague, with stuff tangentially related to the quote (really, they were more about disney being an evil corporation) mixed with nft discourse, deviantart australian mud fetish lumity art (why is it specifically australian?), and databases/user-generated stuff like imdb and tv tropes. nothing that would suggest that this would be a plausible search term consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 20:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    "the only readers this will serve are simpsons fans looking for the joke" – what's the problem? This redirect gives the readers what they're after. J947 ‡ edits 02:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    to be a little more specific, they will be looking for the kind of content they would find on know your meme (which is to say, more than a passing mention), which wikipedia doesn't have. or they'll have come from twitter, which is even worse consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    they will be looking for the kind of content they would find on know your meme we have to assume that people looking for content on Wikipedia are expecting the kind of content found on Wikipedia. If they want KYM-type content they will be searching KYM not Wikipedia. If they find what they are looking for on Wikipedia, great, everyone wins. If they don't then they can use the sources in our article to find what they are looking for or search again using the information in our article to refine their search terms, again everybody wins. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - As long as the content remains at the target, this is a reasonable redirect. Does not appear to be covered anywhere else locally... wikiquote:The Nostalgia Critic/Season 16#The Simpsons Movie exists. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:35, 20 June 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).

Dr. John R. Hall

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 John R. Hall. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

John R. Hall (sociologist) is also a Dr., so this is ambiguous. Could also be retargeted to the disamb John R. Hall but not sure if that is necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending the outcome of the linked AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: That AFD was relisted on May 22. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (the AfD also closed as keep). The sociologist has a PhD and is entitled to be titled Dr. but nowhere in the article or in any of the references he is titled so. Jay 💬 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Jay None of the sources call the CEO a doctor, either? Wouldn't we vote delete, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    They do. Jay 💬 04:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Cancelled my earlier vote since PARAKANYAA moved the target article to John Robert Hall III, and converted the target title to an ambiguous redirect (which is sort of problematic, but that is another discussion). Retarget to John Robert Hall III. Jay 💬 04:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Hall (author) was closed to "keep"; the article formerly at John R. Hall (author) has since been moved to John Robert Hall III by the RfD nominator, in addition to John R. Hall (author) being retargeted to John R. Hall.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 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).

Latvians in random countries

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 most to Latvians, Delete France and NZ. There was only 1 participant (discounting a blocked user) and there was no feedback on his choices. No prejudice against revisiting and discussing any individual entry. Jay 💬 03:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

All unmentioned at the target. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED.
N.B. regarding the redirects Latvians in Italy and Latvians in France; although France and Italy aren't mentioned in its text, the article's lead image highlights them as having at least 1000+ Latvians residing there. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the above. Too many redirect pages for information that is, or should be, included in the single Latvian diaspora page. It lacks any usefulness and is simply taking up space. I also agree WP:RETURNTORED and its applicability here, as it's backed by policy too. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Deletion does not save space (WP:DWAP). J947 ‡ edits 11:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 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).

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories

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) — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 15:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this category is intended to be redlinked and having a redirect at this title defeats the purpose of having this category like Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I agree it defeats the purpose... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Can you provide more context? How is the redirect different from its target? Jay 💬 05:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories is for people that want to be in categories that do not exist (are redlinked), and Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages are people who have categories on their userpage that have been deleted in CfD. Both have redlinked categories, just different focuses, if that makes any sense? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 06:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    So going by the titles, and the way you distinguished them, redlinked categories are a superset of deleted categories, hence won't be suitable as a {{Category redirect}}. I'll wait for further context as I didn't get the deletion rationale of I think this category is intended to be redlinked ... Also, what was the purpose of creating this redirect in the first place since creating inter-category redirects is not to be done? Jay 💬 17:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment whatever happens this title needs to be protected/salted. It's been deleted and recreated multiple times, been the subject of at least 2 CfDs and a DRV. I don't care what the outcome is, but people need to stop wasting time with it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    I would support salting/protection. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The history here is a long-simmering fight between three classes of users.
    Class A: people who think Special:WantedCategories should be clear at all costs.
    Class B: people who want vanity categories on their user pages (and sometimes vanity red-linked categories)
    Class C: people who think WP:USERCAT should be enforced as written (and thus disallow vanity categories per WP:OC/U#jokes)
  • Since circa 2018, a compromise has been reached between the three classes where:
    Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page are allowed to be red and have members
    All other red-linked categories are verboten (and this is actually enforced every time that special page updates)
    Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages (and its child Category:Wikipedians in unconventional user categories is an implicit exception to the class-C rules, as well as other principles like WP:G4). Outside of that tree, Class C mostly succeeds and normal deletion processes apply.
  • This hasn't been codified anywhere, but individual CfDs and RfDs have generally respected it since nobody wants to reopen the old fights.
  • Although I've attempted to describe the above situation neutrally, I personally am quite strongly in classes A and C. Hence, I think this category, like all redirects to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages should be deleted and emptied and all of the users in them and all other Class B users should be subject to standard conduct sanctions if they continue to engage in the contemptuous behavior that brought them here. But I want to be clear what a delete result here amounts to - it's not just minor technical cleanup as the nomination here seems to be implying, but instead reopening the old frozen conflict and annoying either the WantedCategories enforcers, the users in the category, or both. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nominator and participants want this deleted, there's still the question of whether this should be a joke red-linked category or whether it should be emptied. Because of this, and the history noted by Thryduulf and Pppery, I think more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep to retain the compromise (and strongly suggest this discussion is not further relisted given how little it matters). J947 ‡ edits 00:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pppery. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    To be clear, I personally support deleting this category, because I'm a diehard enforce-the-rules autist. But I totally see how the explanation I provided above could become a "keep" argument. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Those relists weren't very useful. J947 ‡ edits 22:43, 20 June 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).

Jackie Farrell

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Jackie Farrell

Sneakers O' Toole

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. While there were arguments that the titles should be kept as they refer to a meme, I find the opposite arguments (that the titles are not reliably sourced and refer to a fleeting gag) more compelling. Per WP:YAHOONEWS, "Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source", and per WP:KYM, "Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable." Since this is sourced entirely to a syndicated source taking information from KYM, the information would not be reliably sourced even if it were restored to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The only source for this character is a Know Your Meme page, which was reposted by Yahoo, and that source was removed from this article. A Google search does not bring up any other potentially valid references. Xeroctic (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete not mentioned the target. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet PoliticalPoint is a confirmed sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sneakers O'Toole is a popular meme that some may search on Wikipedia to figure out what episode it belongs to. BelowFlames (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    No, it was a short random gag from one episode of one show, that's apparently not even important enough to be mentioned in an article dedicated to that episode. If someone doesn't already know what this is, they'll be redirected somewhere with no explanation of this at the target, and be none the wiser afterwards. WP:NOTFANDOM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, per my reply immediately above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and restore the mention (which would negate any "not mentioned" !votes). I don't at all understand why that would not be a "valid" reference—the character is easily verifiable by watching the episode. -- Tavix (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia:KNOWYOURMEME: Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.
    So, it may be problematic to get the Sneakers O'Toole mention restored to that article. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I've added Sneakers O'Toole & Sneakers o toole to the discussion. Sneakers O'Toole is tagged as an {{R with possibilities}}, and the other two are avoided double redirects thru that. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Article name references a character from a 17 second gag, not notable enough. TheVectoriser 17:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC) –moved from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9#Sneakers o toole. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. The removal from the target was proper. I would have added it back with the original KYM source but WP:KYM is not reliable. I don't understand how watching the episode makes the meme verifiable. The redirect may be recreated (or may be not) if mention is added back to target. Jay 💬 18:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
You watch the episode to verify that the character exists. If the character exists, his role in the episode can be added to the plot summary. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 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).

The Oxford Companion to Military History

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#The Oxford Companion to Military History

Bowie knife 99

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#Bowie knife 99

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI