Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 11

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 💬 05:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• North Tyneside Community Independents → Neighborhood association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, and probably shouldn't be since it's one, not particularly prominent example. Majority (organisation) mentions North Tyneside Community Independents, but only in the context of them endorsing a candidate, which I don't think makes a useful redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't have any content about this association/grouping, meaning the links (piped as "NTCI") in 2026 North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council election are unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - redirect to "Neighborhood association" is too broad and not mentioned at the target. Asteramellus (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as a total WP:RSURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 15 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 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! 06:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:SCISSORSWikipedia:SCISSORS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Project this redirects to is defunct. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - A page being marked historical, abandoned, or defunct is not a reason to delete any extant shortcuts that point there. There is also some minimal recorded use of this. A strong case for a retarget might prove successful; no need to search for a solution to a problem that does not exist though. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Godsy Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Godsy. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep being defunct isn't a reason to delete and this is where I would expect to go given the general deletion policy doesn't use the scissors image. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:02, 12 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 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 Shipping (fandom)#Reylo. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• ReyloReylo → Star Wars sequel trilogy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target page. Where should it point instead? Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

For your information, from judging the face value of one quick search, there might be enough RS for someone to write a standalone article. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment this was originally created as a redirect to Kylo Ren, but the term is not mentioned there beyond being in the title of a reference (ping user:(Oinkers42) who retargetted). The name is mentioned at The Love Hypothesis but that wouldn't make a good target as it links to this redirect clearly expecting it to lead to detailed information elsewhere. The last paragraph at Shipping (fandom)#Shipping debates is relevant, but I'm weakly against that as a target as it requires knowledge from earlier in that article to make sense if you aren't familiar with the concept of shipping in the fandom context (and I don't think we can assume everyone using this search term is). The "Naming conventions" section of the same article also mentions this name, but it's just a passing mention as an example and also requires contextual knowledge so is definitely not a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Shipping (fandom), which covers this topic better than any other current article. No need to target a specific section, since it's mentioned in three sections. I'd be curious to see an attempt at a standalone article, but that's outside the purview of this discussion. - Eureka Lott 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Shipping (fandom) per EurekaLott. Suonii180 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting this to Shipping (fandom)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Shipping (fandom)#Reylo, an anchor I just made to the aforementioned last paragraph of Shipping (fandom)#Shipping debates. There is substantial(ish) coverage of the ship (and ~controversy) there. Targeting that page without an anchor would violate WP:RSURPRISE because it would lead someone to reasonably believe that "Reylo" was a synonym for shipping (for example). I also agree it's a bit awkward to launch people into this section if we can't assume that they understand what shipping is at all, but I can only plead that we do this with subtopic redirects all the time, and at least the reader can just scroll up to find relevant context. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Shipping (fandom)#Reylo per Dingolover6969. Asteramellus (talk) 00:18, 15 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 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 💬 18:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Winnable → No-win situation#In video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Winnability → No-win situation#In video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Losability → No-win situation#In video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Loseability → No-win situation#In video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

needless to say, those are the properties related to whether or not something can be won or lost, and/or the chances thereof. they're not really discussed here, nor should they, but i'm not sure where they should, due to how many different contexts they can be applied to. victory and failure would be the closest, but the possibility of those factors happening isn't discussed there either. maybe just soft redirect to wikt:winnability and wikt:losability?
also, the target section doesn't exist, and would be mildly surprising as a target if it still did consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all. These are easily understood words that generally require no explanation and do not map to any particular encyclopedic concept. They are in no way specific to no-win situations or video games. Forms of winnable appear in hundreds of articles in a variety of contexts including elections and all manner of sports, games, and contests. Losability and loseability appear nowhere on Wikipedia except for the existence of these redirects. Per Ngram these words are rarely or never used, so this is unsurprising. Wiktionary redirects are inappropriate, both because these terms do not need defining and because they do not meet the requirements set forth at WP:SOFTSP/WP:SSRT. These are not commonly wikified. There is just one incoming link to winnable from article space (at EMILY's List Australia, which I will remove) and the other three have zero. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above that these don't meet WP:SSRT and we can just delete them unless some good target for them is found. (Maybe something covered by game theory?) Dingolover6969 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Game theory is overly technical to the point that this would be misleading. In a simple sentence like, "Pac-Man is popular because it appears winnable to most players" a link to game theory would suggest that this is based on a specific mathematical model or explicit application of game theory as opposed to the straightforward meaning "people like it because they think they can win". If there's a more specialized meaning in a particular context then it would be better to explain it in the article rather than link it. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 06:35, 12 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 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 💬 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Citipost → Citigroup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the current target. There is a mention at PIN Group, but I believe that is of a German subsidiary of Citipost and not Citipost itself? If so, best deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be a mistake. Mauls (talk) 21:52, 17 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 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. ASUKITE 16:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Shawn D. Miller → Citigroup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. While there are a lot of matches in search for people named "Shawn Miller" it is unclear if any of the pages mentioning those names are about a Shawn D. Miller so this is best deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. External search results show only two people who even might be notable, a Citigroup executive who died in 2014 and an author in the fields of anatomy and zoology, neither of whom are mentioned on the Shaun Miller (disambiguation) page (where Shawn Miller redirects) nor in internal search results for "Shawn Miller". With no coverage of anyone by this name the redirect is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:42, 12 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 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. ASUKITE 16:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2% Min Coupon based on Gold → Citigroup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I cannot find any information pointing to this being a subsidiary of citigroup. It appears to be some sort of financial product, but it is not mentioned here or anywhere and would likely be best deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to be a citigroup-issued financial product, but product is not mentioned at the target - redirect to the broader citigroup article is not helpful.Asteramellus (talk) 00:06, 15 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 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 procedurally. Expanded into an article by the creator; there's no point in leaving this open. (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Fleur Leussink → Psychic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fleur Leussink appears to be a psychic, but has no reason to exist as a redirect. We don't redirect every person to the article on their occupation. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• I foresee this being deleted, per nom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, random psychic not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The subject is notable individual and have an indepth coverage in reliable sources as like The independant, The Guardian and more, for that I made it a standalone article than redirect. Krevionta (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The redirect has been expanded into an article which appears to satisfy notability. I suppose this RfD should be closed now as it's no longer applicable, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to close it due to being WP:INVOLVED. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 09:35, 12 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 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 💬 15:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Europe's → Europe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

i would say "delete's per previous consensus to delete possessive forms when not outright plausible due to issues with sentence completeness", and then also advise checking the links for that deliberately red link, but i'm not going to, because i'm evil

the incoming links were evidently all mistakes that went unnoticed, so they've been removed consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete's per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatttt, I’m evil too! …okay, I’ll just do my !vote and be done with it… delete per previous delete rationale. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This has all the typical problems. Its existence encourages usage in articles, in violation of MOS:POSLINK. It is unnatural as a search for Europe and the actual meaning is unclear—Europe's what‍?! The redirect obstructs search for titles and redirects that actually begin with Europe's. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pascuet (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with nom and Myceteae - not a plausible search term. Asteramellus (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete's what we should do here, considering such redirects are what led the target of MOS:POSLINK to be created. Steel1943 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete's the way to go, per previous consensus and above. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:12, 17 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 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. Note that this has a couple backlinks but they both are referring to the distinct earlier festival. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hong Kong Festival → Hong Kong Arts Festival  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: Hong Kong Festival was held 3 times in 1969, 1971 and 1973 respectively. The event included sports and arts events. Records also show that theater performaces were held in the UK at the time in the name of "Hong Kong Festival '67-73" It is possible that it was broken down into seperate events, including Hong Kong Arts Festival.

鄭寶鴻 (2015). 順流逆流— 香港近代社會影像1960-1985. The Commercial Press (Hong Kong) Limited. pp. 138–142. ISBN 9789620756498. Labratscientist (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Just notified the creator of this RfD. Jay 💬 17:58, 18 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 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. Procedural close, wrong venue ASUKITE 16:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Babbo → MÄR#Plot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Babbo (restaurant) should be moved to base title, since it is the only exact page title match. There is also a redirect from a birth name at Joan Carmella Babbo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No wait, it is a full name, not a birth name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, but shouldn't this be an RM not an RFD? Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter. If I had done this at RM, the redirect would need to be deleted to make room for it. Here, I proposed to delete a redirect to make way for a move. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. Wrong venue. Eh, it really does matter that editors use the appropriate venue or process for page moves, deletions, etc. Sometimes, in the course of an RFD discussion, it emerges that a move is the best course of action. In the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, we should allow some flexibility to consider a page move to be a valid RFD outcome on occasion. But we should actively discouraged editors who should know better from using RFD when the stated intent is a page move. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close without prejudice to an RM per Myceteae and the Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log edit notice (that for some reason isn't displaying?) and the RfD instructions: If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here.. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 12 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 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. ASUKITE 17:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Le Quai Malaquais et l'InstitutLe Quai Malaquais et l'Institut → Camille Pissarro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just redirects to the main article on Camille Pissarro which doesn't mention the painting at all. No incoming links either, should be deleted. Surajr7 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• It is the new title of Le Quai Malaquais, Printemps, and this information can be added to the target. The details are available at Bruno Lohse § Secret vault. Jay 💬 21:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 04:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist; relisting again for additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I added a mention of the name to the article, copying from Bruno Lohse as suggested. Redirects are cheap. lethargilistic (talk) 04:22, 15 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 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 Style (form of address) without prejudice against adding a hatnote. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 01:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Styled nameStyled name → Courtesy name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in Courtesy name, its current target. That page is about the Asian/Chinese extra name thing. I would vaguely expect this redirect to point to Style (form of address), because, as that page says, A style, by tradition or law, precedes a reference to a person, which means it either is used like a name or like part of a name, so that's my nom. I'm not super knowledgeable on the topic, so, if someone wants to just fix the current target page because that's the right thing to do, be my guest. Additional info: Style name points to Art name (also a Sinosphere thing), but that is mentioned on that page. Style, a dab, claims that Style (form of address), titles or honorifics, including Chinese courtesy names, so there may be a complicated history here... Style (form of address), doesn't even mention courtesy name, but probably should! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Style (form of address) as discussed in nom - possibly a hatnote to Courtesy name / Art name may also be useful. Asteramellus (talk) 22:55, 11 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 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 List of White House security breaches. ASUKITE 17:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• White House security incidentWhite House security incident → Security incidents involving Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a broad title and shouldn't redirect directly to one president's security incidents page. There are other incidents like Security_incidents_involving_George_W._Bush#2001_White_House_shooting, 2011 White House shooting, 1994 White House shooting, and 2014 White House intrusion, or, heck, the burning of the White House in 1814.

A move of this page to 2026 White House security incident with a redirect to May 2026 White House shooting is perhaps plausible but I don't know that it's a necessary search term as I don't know that "security incident" is a term people would be using for a shooting. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of White House security breaches. Given List of White House security breaches#Non-trespassing incidents, I'd be in favor of moving that page to List of White House security incidents. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, good potential retarget. I didn't stumble upon that one. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Great suggestions; I support both. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of White House security breaches per Tavix. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Tavix, nice catch. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 12 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 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 💬 15:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Say Yes! → John Seed (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• SAY YES → John Seed (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• SAY YES! → John Seed (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are technically double redirects now - the target has been redirected in lieu of deletion to Far Cry 5. However, there is no mention of this phrase at that new target. Plus, there was never any mention of this phrase at the old target either. The search term is also vague, especially when we have articles like Say Yes (Floetry song). The varying caps is also unnecessary. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all - agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all. None of the entries on the Say Yes dab page contain an exclamation mark and none of the included article indicate that the topic is commonly styled all-caps. "Say Yes" is a common phrase and one that may be exclaimed, so all the variations presented here are likely to be encountered but whatever it might refer to, we don't cover. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your diligence in checking! Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:08, 12 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 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) Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Republic ItalyRepublic Italy → Italy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Italy RepublicItaly Republic → Italy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Odd ungrammatical redirects that aren't helping anyone find our article on Italy. Potentially harmful getting in the way of search results for keywords. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong keep for "Republic Italy" as a quite plausible redirect.

Keep for "Italy Republic" as a slightly less but still plausible redirect. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep both; fairly plausible given the names of the Italian Republic. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per above arguments. How do they "get in the way of search results"? Katzrockso (talk) 01:14, 13 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 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. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• First Tower → List of tallest buildings in Calgary#Other buildings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very ambiguous name and search term. While "First Place" is indeed the name of an aforementioned tower in Edmonton, the name/phrase itself is very generic and could be used in a variety of different contexts. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm inclined towards disambiguation here with First Tower United F.C., Three Towers of San Marino#First Tower, one of the Coastal fortifications of Jersey (redlinked elsewhere as First Tower (Jersey), FIRST Rotterdam (previously? known as FIRST Tower), an area of St Helier (mentioned in the lead), Casablanca Finance City Tower (unclear if "First Tower" is a proper name or miscapitalised description) and redlinked in a few places Canal First Tower in Tokyo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Thryduulf. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Drafted below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 1 July 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 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the redirect's undeletion for any reason. ASUKITE 17:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Camp Scott (Oklahoma) → Scouting_in_Oklahoma#Girl_Scouts_of_Eastern_Oklahoma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target and doesn't appear to ever have been mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 03:16, 11 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 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 Military activity in the Antarctic#Notable operations. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 00:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Operación Estrella PolarOperación Estrella Polar → Operación Estrella Polar III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google search results and judging by what links to it mean that this is not the right target and should probably be deleted retargeted per below. See also es:Operación Estrella Polar. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Do as you want, most important is that this should not be a red link. Taivorist (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain or give more information on why this should not be a red link? Shazback (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Taivorist: the question was for you. Jay 💬 05:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete to return to red. Seems very likely to me that a page could be written about this topic (the original, not-third one) in the future. I don't think the current conflation helps anyone. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Military activity in the Antarctic#Notable operations where it's mentioned. I don't like deleting the redirect because I do see it as a plausible but incorrect search term for the current article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 27 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 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. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Portage Mall (Portage la Prairie, Manitoba) → List of shopping malls in Canada#Former malls  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect points to a list that has a one-word description of the mall, which isn't at all helpful for readers. (It also points to the wrong section, but that could be fixed.) Recommend deletion per WP:RETURNTORED. - Eureka Lott 17:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless redirect that targets an (unsourced) mention in a list with no further information. Especially pointless with an unnecessary disambiguator -- Portage Mall is already a red link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The disambiguator is fine, and plausibly needed as the primary topic when I googled "Portage Mall" was a very-recently closed mall in Portage, Michigan and there are (or maybe were) also malls by this name in at least Portage, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan (I have not looked to see if any of them are notable). Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable redirect as the target has conent related. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• This redirect points to the first #Former malls section, which lists the ones in Alberta, not Manitoba. If kept this should be refined to List of shopping malls in Canada#Manitoba (I believe there is no way to link a child section with a repeating name directly). Rusalkii (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The correct section would be #Former malls 6—but it's still an unhelpful redirect, because there's no meaningful information in the list. - Eureka Lott 16:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Refine as discussed above. This is a harmless and correct redirect, and returning to red would not help it nucleate an any faster article, is my bet. Who knows, maybe someone will even add more info to this location some day. Maybe even a source. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There isn't enough information on the topic to sustain a redirect. If someone is using this, it's already been established that it's a mall in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I have removed the mention from the target. A good place to add information would be Portage la Prairie, and if done, the redirect may be recreated. Jay 06:11, 28 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 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. Jay 06:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• SumitomoSumitomo → Sumitomo Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bringing my question to a more watched venue in the hopes that those with the requisite knowledge can help, I ask: should this be dabified (or should a disambiguation page be created)? Special:PrefixIndex/Sumitomo alone lists at least twenty pages that aren't redirects, but I'm not sure which ones are parent companies of others. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to either, as a first choice, Sumitomo Group (a group of loosely connected companies, or keiretsu as they call it in Japan) as {{R from short name}}, or as a second choice, Sumitomo Masatomo (the founder of the group) as {{R from surname}}. My impression is that almost all of these companies are either directly members of the group, or subsidiaries of member companies. I spot checked the entire prefix index and didn't see anything unrelated to either of those two topics. But the Sumitomo Group seems much more well known than Sumitomo Masatomo, so I've put it first. Duckmather (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems like a standard Keiretsu as all of those companies are part of the parent company. Add a hatnote for the founder Sumitomo Masatomo. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:02, 11 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 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 💬 05:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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

This format simply doesn't make sense. This isn't a place referred to as "Forest" necessitating the disambiguator "Maya", it's just the Maya Forest. Toadspike [Talk] 20:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - as rdr maker, seems legal to me (oughtta be {{r unnecessary dab}} though, I think?), and will use/have used for articles on Maya civ/Belize history/etc where "the forest" just means this forest! can db-self if this is illegal/contrary to MOS/etc though :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete the target is not about the concept of a forest in Maya culture. The disambiguation doesn't make sense, it isn't Maya (forest) (a forest named "Maya") -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete. All the sources I've found call it either "Maya Forest", "Selva Maya" ("selva" means "jungle" in Spanish) or "Forest Maya". Maya (forest) would be an appropriate redirect, but this formation isn't I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and others. Also note that, despite the creator's statements, the link is not in use in any articles. This is a good-faith but misguided creation that does not conform with our standard approaches to redirects or disambiguation nor is it a case of the wrong but understandable anticipated disambiguation that we sometimes keep around. This is recently created and had zero pageviews prior to this nomination. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – this forest may be called "the forest" in some particular contexts, but that doesn't make this a reasonable redirect title. "Forest" is the generic part of the name, a "partial title match": just as the Louisville Zoo is not listed at Zoo (disambiguation) and doesn't have Zoo (Louisville) redirecting to it, the Maya Forest is not listed at Forest (disambiguation) and shouldn't have this redirecting to it. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:31, 12 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 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 💬 06:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2637 → 3rd millennium#27th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nothing about the year 2637 at the target. Renerpho (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I came here after reading Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 15#2577 and noticing that 2637 was the only number in that list that wasn't a red link.

Can someone explain to me the use of redirects like 2369? It says that this is a redirect to a section, and that "This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject." There is nothing about the year 2369 in the target article. Lots of redirects like this... and lots of years that don't have redirects. Renerpho (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak disambiguate between 2637 Bobrovnikoff and Farm to Market Road 2637 instead of deletion Duckmather (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PTM. Minor planets are never referred to by their number alone. Farm to Market Roads I can see an argument for, but they're abbreviated as eg. "FM 2637" and thus referred to in that manner. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are other 1104 redirects. Dudzcar (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Tavix. The current situation is unnaceptable because this redirect will not be useful to readers unless we have information about the year 2637, which we don't. Disambiguation is not appropriate because we have no evidence that the proposed items are only referred to by just this number. Readers searching for this term are most likely either looking for information on the year or the number itself. It looks like we don't cover them, neither at the current target nor at 2000 (number)#2600 to 2699. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:18, 18 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 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! 07:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• PoogiePoogie → Monster Hunter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

an act of unforgivable travesty! the poogie is unmentioned across all articles related to monster hunter

a drought of hope! i could find no sources to warrant a mention

a... weird turn, i guess! poogie bell is a guy who exists

regardless of how presentable that article is (i don't think it'd survive an afd), would it be better to retarget to that in absence of better targets? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

by the way, i did find this, but like with hitstop, i don't think "fucking isn't/barely is in monster hunter wilds" is a good candidate for the only thing to mention about anything consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, here is an RS that we can use to add to the main series page , that actuall goes into the mechanics of gow the poogue works, so at least can be added as a sentence. Masem (t) 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep agree with keep comment above. Asteramellus (talk) 00:11, 15 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 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) Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Pukekohe massacrePukekohe massacre → Schlaepfer family murders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pukekohe shootingPukekohe shooting → Pukekohe massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The term is a Wikipedia neologism, there are no search results that predate the Wikipedia article

Furthermore the killings took place in Paerata not Pukekohe, making this an error.

Also nominating Pukekohe shooting for the same reason Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• • Note, I've just added Pukekohe shooting to the header. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, these are both temp {{R from move}} redirects. The article was at the massacre title from 2022 until 2 minutes before this nomination, it was created at the shooting title but was there for less than a day but given that it was a shooting it's a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Its not a plausible search term because it didn't take place in Pukekohe. Its unfortunate that no one seemed to have noticed the glaring error until now but there is no reliable source referring to as such a term. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Pretty much every title where an article resided for a significant amount of time is a useful redirect because people expect the article to be at the article it was at previously, bookmarks, links (internal and external) etc, also take time to be updated. See {{R from move}} for a fuller explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The New Zealand Herald article () cited in the original version of the article says it took place in Pukekohe, so this is not something made up by Wikipedia. Tevildo (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, it states it took place above Pukekohe and then refers to the location as Paerata. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Uh, at least from above, keep per move/article history? I don’t think that the fact that the title is wrong means much for the “keep per history” reason. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:25, 11 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 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 move Birkenhead West (constituency) over Birkenhead West. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Birkenhead West → Birkenhead, New Zealand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Would make more sense to target Birkenhead West (UK Parliament constituency) as the only use of Birkenhead West on the target page is just for a statistical area. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig or retarget. Googling "Birkenhead West" -Wikipedia in a private window using a VPN to a US IP address the first page is about evenly split between UK and New Zealand results, but subsequent pages are more UK-heavy. Disambiguation is my first choice but retargetting as proposed is second. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Whilst there are some search results I don't really think people are actually going to be looking for this compared to the constituency, its a much more niche interest (a statistical area that is split from a larger area) compared to a constituency. All the Birkenhead West results are relating to the statistical area and not the suburb itself, which isn't divided into such a distinction. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Move Birkenhead West (constituency) to the base name or disambiguate given the statistical area seems to be less notable than the constituency. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overwrite per Crouch, Swale, leaving a hatnote to Birkenhead, New Zealand behind. Per WP:NCUKPARL, the longstanding consensus that "(UK Parliament constituency)" should follow names of all British constituencies, regardless of ambiguity, is no longer in effect. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:21, 13 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 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 Baby talk. @Myceteae: There was no consensus for or against your proposed addition to the hatnote; feel free to be bold. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Baby voiceBaby voice → Playboi Carti  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It seems that the target is known for his baby-like voice, but this is a generic term and shouldn't target here. I'd lean toward a retarget to Babbling, where Baby vocalizationBaby vocalization also redirects (although note that this too is a fairly recent creation by a not-here blocked user), but I wanted to see if there were other thoughts before pulling the trigger on it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the vocalisations of babies (Babbling) is a plausible target for baby voice. My first thought was Baby talk. the voice/register a person adopts when talking to a baby. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

See, for example, this BBC article which has a subheading asking: Ever find yourself speaking in a 'baby voice' whenever you talk to your little one? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably makes more sense, and I'd be okay with that as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment how about a dab between Babbling and Baby talk? I'm also fine with a hatnote to Baby talk from Babbling (potential new target) --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to baby talk, or DAB as proposed by Lenticel. (Both options are acceptable to me; if expressing a preference makes it easier to determine consensus, I suppose I marginally prefer the first.) Playboi Carti's delivery has definitely been compared to babies in the past, but not to an extent that makes the current redirect target helpful. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Baby talk. This is the closest thing we have. Update hatnote to include a link to Sexy baby voice. If a dab page is created, Sexy baby voice should be included. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Baby talk, and… nothing else, sure. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:28, 11 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 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6, unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Alcohol lLaws of Maine → Alcohol laws of Maine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete implausible typo. This is an R from move but the title was clearly created in error and should have been moved without leaving a redirect or speedy-deleted. It was moved again within a minute. These were the first of a series of moves on 4 May 2017. I discovered this while reviewing redirects to Maine Law, the pages listed there, and related pages following this discussion. Keeping sloppily created redirects like this around creates a maintenance burden and is a time suck for other editors seeking to ascertain the history and assess the best redirect target for groups of similar redirects to related articles. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:19, 11 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).