Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2026.

FIFIA 2006

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#FIFIA 2006

Tim Stern

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 05:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Tim is not a variant of Tom, and Tom is not a variant of Tim. DuncanHill (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, there hasn't ever been a Tim on that dabpage and it wouldn't be appropriate for a Tim Stern to be listed there anyways, as per nom. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:43, 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).

Competitive Martial Arts

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Competitive Martial Arts

Kurva

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 2#Kurva

1-12cav

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 2#1-12cav

Malika Elkaraksy

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 💬 04:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Another redirect created by User:OCDD who has now been confirmed of abusively using multiple accounts. And search results will give a much better overview of her rather than just her national team anyway: Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 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).

Tiquan Forbes

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

non-notable retired minor league player; please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#Ti'Quan Forbes Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I just listed the 2022 RfD where I had voted keep. He was removed from the Amarillo Sod Poodles roster in 2023. There are mentions in multiple articles, but I don't see any single target. Delete. Jay 💬 04:27, 19 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).

Aramean nationalism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 22#Aramean nationalism

Barbers Family

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 resolved. A new article was written atop this redirect. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Target of the redirect does not really discuss a "Barbers Family". Presumably this is a prominent political family in the Philippines as the author also created Category:Barbers Family, but there is no mention of any of this in the article other than identifying the redirect target's father. Whpq (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. Without a main article, it may refer to any verifiable member of the family. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Notice a due article was written. Kindly process as appropriate.Jondel (talk) 01:23, 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).

Alexandriaocasiocortez

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. My closing comments in the below discussion largely apply here as well. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

All of these redirects contain 3 or more words which are combined into one single one thanks to the missing spaces. Since Josephstalin was deleted just the other day, these likewise should all be deleted per WP:UNNATURAL and WP:UNHELPFUL. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment (equally applicable to the other related mass nominations), if any of these people use(d) social media handles or branding in this format (or which could be interpreted to be in this format) they should be excluded from the mass nomination and considered separately as those are reasons why somone might search in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Every single one of these seems totally useless. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all most, UNNATURAL as noted by nominator except if the user has a broken keyboard. Concatenated strings as titles make it harder to find other articles by "polluting" search results (e.g., a user typing "Bayo" in the searchbar currently sees "Bay of Bengal" via the redirect as the 2nd suggested article despite the user overwhelmingly likely searching for another term). Shazback (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Edited my !vote above, as some terms do seem relevant to retain, or at least discuss separately, as they are website or social media handles. Procedural Keep: Billdeblasio, Hochiminhcity. Shazback (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. These are unlikely to be of use to anyone, and per Shazback above, actually make it harder to search other topics. If one's keyboard is broken to the point that one can't use the space bar, there may be a bigger problem with one's device, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete We have a vast number of articles with titles of three or more words; creating unspaced redirects to all of them will make searching much harder, not easier. We should not except any or reconsider them separately; Wikipedia is not a directory of domain names or social media handles, and again, creating unspaced redirects to all articles on people or organisations who have eponymous domain names or social handles will merely overwhelm searches. These redirects are also entirely unnecessary for facilitating searches; typing unspaced terms already works (e.g. "petertork" already gives Peter Tork). NebY (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. The RfD tag temporarily makes these not function as redirects, which is why they are 'polluting' search results. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I only saw this replying to another request, but from what I see, these redirects are WP:UNHELPFUL and I'm not sure why they even exist to begin with. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:45, 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).

AlexanderLukashenko

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. Although such redirects aren't forbidden per se, in this discussion, at least, I find broad consensus against newer ones. Regarding Shazback's comment about user names, I would not consider one-off recreations to be disruptive, but I wouldn't exactly encourage it either, as I'd expect to see them back at RfD soon. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

All CamelCase-style redirects created relatively recently, long after this type of redirect was made obsolete. Delete all 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Delete most as per nominator's rationale. Shazback (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Procedural keep for a few where the concatenated string is used as their official website or social media handle, which I feel should be discussed outside of such a broad list: BobRae, RecepTayyipErdogan. Shazback (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. These are unlikely to be of use to anyone, and per Shazback here, actually make it harder to search other topics. If one's keyboard is broken to the point that one can't use the space bar, there may be a bigger problem with one's device, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
My laptop has several broken keys (P, Y and right shift are completely broken, the D only works intermittently). It's extremely annoying to use but it is usable (even to edit Wikipedia on occasion, making heavy use of copy and paste) and is otherwise in good shape for being ~12 years old, so the may in your last sentence is crucial. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all. We have a vast number of articles with titles of two or more words; creating unspaced redirects to all of them will make searching much harder, not easier. We should not except any or reconsider them separately; Wikipedia is not a directory of domain names or social media handles, and again, creating unspaced redirects to all articles on people or organisations who have eponymous domain names or social handles will merely overwhelm searches. These redirects are also entirely unnecessary for facilitating searches; typing unspaced terms already works (e.g. "petertork" already gives Peter Tork). NebY (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless. Anyone using these are looking for the subject so they have utility. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Recently created, sharing the same, WP:UNNATURAL error. We could just as easily make millions more of these. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all. As NebY notes, Wikipedia's search already handles unspaced queries natively, so these redirects provide no navigational benefit. Pascuet (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Do you think the redirect DonaldTrump deserves to be deleted too? Electron230 (talk) 02:25, 24 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).

"Wikipedia:Duplicates" & friends

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 Wikipedia:Merging#Duplicate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Though the target page has been deprecated, even if that was not the case, I might have nominated these redirects even before then if I had noticed them previously. Long story short, merging two pages together is not 100% sign that the pages were duplicates. In other words, these redirects could have been considered misleading, even prior to transitioning. All proposed article merge discussions to WP:AFD. For these reasons, I'm proposing that these redirects be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget all to Wikipedia:Merging#Duplicate as was done with the longstanding Wikipedia:Duplicate redirect. FaviFake (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Added Wikipedia:DuplicateWikipedia:Duplicate to the discussion. Same concern applies to it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Why delete them? WP:Duplicate (disambiguation) has a list of different possible targets. If anything, they could be retargeted, but I don't see a reason to do that, especially with so many incoming links. FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 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).

Thea Alexis Samper

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete as unverified WP:BLPNAME. The only sources found in a quick Google search were tabloids and various content farms. Note: added Alexis Samper under the same criteria. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC) edited 00:01, 16 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).

Wikipedia:Articles needing to be merged

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 Category:Articles with consensus to merge. Works for me; for the purpose of consensus, consider this close a "withdrawn". (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the target has been deprecated, this is not the purpose of the target page anymore. However, since the wording is kind of odd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion seems to have no "holding cell"-type section or subpage for article mergers that need to be carried out, delete this redirect (but I have no opposition to retargeting this redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if inappropriate target for pending merges is found.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Category:Articles with consensus to merge. Seems a better solution. FaviFake (talk) 18:26, 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).

Wikipedia:Merge Notice Board

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:G7 (db-author) (this was tagged as U1, which only applies to userspace) ASUKITE 17:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the facts that the target has been departed, the redirect has no incoming links, and the redirect is probably an inappropriate name for WP:AFD (the venue which has superseded the target), probably best to just delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. As creator of redirect. No longer needed. Redundant as target process has been eliminated. GenQuest "scribble" 13:16, 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).

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

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 Procedural close. The content has been restored so this is no longer a redirect and so not within RfD's remit. If someone believes this content should be deleted, they are free to nominate it at MfD (but such a nomination should not be made procedurally). If they think it should be redirected somewhere then I recommend discussing that before doing so, possibly with notifications to those who participated here. While there is no consensus below, the opinions expressed should be considered in any future discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
 – Moved to RfD per the nominator's comment below following procedural objections. FaviFake (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There's an ongoing merger discussion, equivalent to a page deletion: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Split_how-to. fgnievinski (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep the redirect per the discussion linked by the nominator. The merge has already been performed, so all that remains is to redirect the page to WP:AFD § Process to avoid the unnecessary duplication. Note that the page cannot be deleted outright in order to preserve its history, per WP:CWW. FaviFake (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Deletion discussion venues are not meant to be how-to pages. We already have separate pages for the deletion policy and the deletion guideline. Keeping the how-to separate will properly recognize the nature of each administrative page. fgnievinski (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
This should be procedurally closed for a number of reasons:
  1. The nominator isn't actually nominating the page for deletion (or any ATD for that matter), they're nominating it as a means of reversing the merge that was performed or performing the split that's under discussion at WT:AFD. There was a slightly similar issue at AfD recently where an editor nominated an article for "keeping" in order to nullify a merge consensus, it was proceduraly closed/speedy kept, see this discussion and the linked noms.
  2. Merges are not deletion, they are not equivalent. The normal split process should be allowed to play out since that's whats under discussion at WT:AFD at the moment.
That said, if this isn't procedurally closed then I would support a redirect to AFD as suggested by Favi above and as discussed in the split discussion that was started after the initial merge. I won't rehash the reasons for the merge or my opposition to the split here, those are in the other discussion. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Fully agree with your rationale for a procedural close. The nominator had restored the duplicate page after being told to wait for a standard WP:SPLIT closure and was then notified that Miscellany for Deletion is inappropriate for proposing a split. A page split is possibly the exact opposite of deletion, as a page is created rather than removed...
The split discussion is still open. FaviFake (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
I object to framing this dispute as a split discussion. The merge did not achieve consensus, even by silence (WP:Silence and consensus, essay): fgnievinski opposed it within two days, and I concurred around 2.5 weeks later. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
I object to framing this dispute as a split discussion.
But ... the split discussion was opened by fgnievinski (also the nom here) over a month and a half ago. It's not framing to point that out. I also think the reason for calling it a split discussion is clear. After the merge Favi (and I, and many others who have worked on the AfD instructions in the interim) de-duplicated things and streamlined the instructions. The proposal was specifically to move the current (post merge) instructions to the GtD page. The split nom quoted in full:

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion was recently merged here. While I appreciate the de-duplication, I understand deletion discussion venues are not how-to pages. We already have separate pages for the deletion policy and the deletion guideline. Splitting the how-to will properly recognize the nature of each administrative page. fgnievinski (talk)

The way I read it, either this nom is related to the split proposal or its a nomination to keep the old (pre-merge) version of GtD and in both of those cases it should be procedurally closed to allow for consensus formation in the appropriate venues. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
The nominator specifically called it a section split nomination, added the standard {{Split}} notice to the page, and called the discussion "Split how-to". I struggle to see how this could be interpreted as anything but a formal WP:SPLIT proposal, which should therefore follow the rules for split discussions and not those of MfD. FaviFake (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
It started as a split proposal, from AfD to GtD. But then someone boldly did the opposite, merging GtD into AfD, with only a marginal consensus and only a few participants (2:1). Recently it was decided mergers are to be discussed as deletions, hence we are here. The discussion could be moved to RfD if you insist. Regardless, the goal is to reach a broader consensus. fgnievinski (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
 Done FaviFake (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding relisting comment since this discussion initiated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - A retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process seems the obvious choice for this title. Merge aside, having it point to a page just concerning article deletion seems problematic. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why would that be problematic? Despite its vague title, the page is merely an explanation of the AfD process. It doesn't cover any other XfD processes, which is why it was merged in the first place. FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I am considering restoring the full page below the redirect to assist newer users arriving from {{AFD help}}, who are more likely to be confused by its current state. The glossary link to WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands is simply broken, as the section was removed. I believe this is allowed, per WT:Redirects for discussion#changing page during an ongoing rfd (June 2026). I acknowledge that the edit would be in the direction of my preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    At this point, if you did that, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion should be reopened or relisted since that discussion did not reach an official close which affected the status of the page, considering the discussion was moved here from MFD and the MFD discussion was specifically for the content of the page. At present, if you restore the page with no XfD discussion resulting in a close to any specific non-procedural result (delete, retarget, etc.) it's like nothing got resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    No need, I've fixed the issue flagged by Flatscan by merging the Shorthands section into WP:AFD § Shorthands (Special:Diff/1359316199). Once this discussion is closed, the redirect will keep working as it did before. I wouldn't move the discussion back, we've had enough procedural complains already and the nominator said it could moved here to RfD. FaviFake (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Moving the discussion from AfD to RfD should not be taken as a shortcut for sanctioning the bold merging. If this discussion ends with no consensus, the status quo before the challenged bold merger would prevail. In other words: the merger should be undone if there's no broad consensus supporting it. fgnievinski (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Oh well, I just learned the the person who did the original bold merger has again blanked the page under discussion. While assuming good faith, I notice it's the third time they've blanked and redirected the page. Regardless of the discussion venue, the goal is to reach a broader consensus about the proposed section split, the reverse bold merger, and the resulting redirect -- all of it. fgnievinski (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    As a compromise solution, why not {{excerpt}} GtD at AfD? fgnievinski (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    FaviFake, your edit did not fix the problem during this RfD, which could be relisted and extended. Somewhere between 8 and 50 readers may be impacted per day, inferring from pageviews for the last 90 days. fgnievinski implemented my suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep This redirect seems obviously fine. I have no opinion on whether to undo the merge that left it a redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I had closed this discussion to "no consensus", but the fact that Fgnievinski performed this edit which restored the content on the page ... which makes me believe that RfD is no longer the correct venue for this and, as I stated earlier, this discussion should occur at WP:MFD and never should have left MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
I was taken aback by their edit as well, given that they were the first to suggest that [t]he discussion could be moved to RfD ... and they restored the content over three days after the discussion was indeed moved. However, note that MfD only allows deletion nominations, which is why the venue choice was contested in the first place: since the nominator seems to want to keep the page, XfD is an unsuitable venue and this should be discussed elsewhere, such as in the splitting discussion at WT:AFD (which was also opened by the nominator). FaviFake (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
@FaviFake: The thing about MFD though is that though the initial intent for each discussion to be deletion, that does not necessarily have to be the end result. I mean, the result could be to merge with something else, userfy, or even WP:BLAR. (If the latter were determined as part of the MFD, we'd probably never be here at RFD.) Steel1943 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Sure. I'm saying that the initial intent of the nominator is to keep the page, not to delete it, so it would be speedily closed for lacking a deletion rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:24, 2 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).

Wikipedia:M2, M3, M4

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. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

With the fact that these redirects were created in October 2025, and then their target was rendered deprecated less than a year later, these redirects really should be thrown back into the pool to be utilized for other purposes ... in other words, delete (and replace all incoming links with the redirects' target if necessary). Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G7 as the redirects' creator. FaviFake (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
(Note: my speedy delete request only applies to the original 3 nominated redirects, not M1 and M5) FaviFake (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including WP:M1, per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    I've added Wikipedia:M1 to the discussion. This redirect has a different target, but I'm not sure if it is the most appropriate target for it considering the target page doesn't seem to have an appropriate place to target the other redirects in this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    Are you aware of WP:M5? FaviFake (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all five. M2, M3 and M4 point to something historical so it is self-evident, and it makes no sense to keep M1 and M5 only even if they still point to something useful. In addition, unless we are talking about something very widely known like the five pillars, I do not think shortcuts in the shape of "Letter-Number" are very useful in the first place since they are completely unclear as to what they are pointing towards. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:24, 16 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).

Propose merge

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) 18:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

An WP:XNR to a deprecated page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is not a good idea at all. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I oppose retargeting to Merge since the Merge is a disambiguation page, which would cause a problematic partial title match situation if the nominated redirect is retargeted there since the redirect is not the exact title of anything on Merge. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    You have that wrong. WP:PTM concerns the entries on a dab page, not the redirects to it. J947 ‡ edits 23:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    Nope, I have that right. Incoming redirects are also applicable since they would not be included on the disambiguation page. The title of this redirect is longer and includes words that are not part of the target page, which is literally a partial title match. More than the target = partial title match, less than the target = partial title match. In addition, the fact that this redirect is not a spelling, capitalization, and/or punctuation variation ... but rather has an entire extra word added to it ... means it is not an appropriate redirect to target a disambiguation page named "Merge". Now, if there is someway to convert this reader, to some kind of concept, that would be a different story, but targeting it to a partial title match that is a disambiguation page is just problematic and quite frankly in my opinion unacceptable. Steel1943 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Try reading what WP:PTM actually says and you'll find (a) it does not mention redirects even once, and (b) is not as rigid as you claim above. e.g. it uses "essentially the same" and "where there is no ris of confusion" not "exact title". Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for completely missing my point and trying to move the discussion into a nitpicking about someone linking a specific page that you don't interpret the same way. My responses in this thread are done because this is turning into badgering. Steel1943 (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    I don't understand how stating that the page you cite as justification for your !vote does not support your !vote is "nitpicking" or "badgering" when you choose to double down on the refuted claim? Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Disambiguation pages exist to take readers to articles that they could be plausibly looking for that could be located at that title and/or which are covered in those articles, not solely those which do have that exact title. The merge disambiguation page lists articles that cover the topic of proposed mergers, PTM is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    • As a compromise on the below votes, I'm going to point out the only article in the disambiguation page Merge which this redirect makes sense to correlate with and vote to retarget there ... weak retarget to Mergers and acquisitions as the only page listed in Merge which the phrasing of this redirect makes any sense and is any way applicable, including the fact that it has several instances of the phrase "propose[d] merge" in it. Steel1943 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Change my retarget stance to "weak". My preference is still delete. (Note to closer, I'm the nominator.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I wondered if we had any article about the concept of proposed mergers generally (e.g. of merging businesses) but if we do haven't found it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Retarget to Merge per J947. It's telling that I didn't find that article when searching using this term, despite it being clearly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Merge, which disambiguates between all sorts of mergers and by extension merge proposals. This includes a hatnote to Wikipedia:Merging, in my opinion the most likely intended target. Merge is hidden in search results, so deletion would be unhelpful. J947 ‡ edits 03:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Merge per J947. Delete and oppose retargeting per Steel1943. I didn't know about partial title matches when I first changed my !vote. FaviFake (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet the bar for XNRs, not an especially meaningful search term for articles listed at the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 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).

Melania Trump speech

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 28#Melania Trump speech

Acrobat (comics)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this is referencing a minor Marvel character called Acrobat, also known as Carl Zante. Not mentioned at the target article and I couldn't find another comic-related article which mentions him although my search was hindered by the many comic characters who are acrobatic so I may have missed a suitable retarget. Suonii180 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:49, 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).

Slave driver

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 2#Slave driver

Carolina del Norte

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:FORRED, Spanish is not a common language in South/North Carolina A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nom although I will note for the record that North Carolina#Demographics mentions that Spanish is the most common language in the state of North Carolina (besides English, obviously) Duckmather (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Duckmather's explanation. There is an affinity between the Spanish language and the Carolinas. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Clear case of WP:RLOTE. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete If the Spanish had colonised/administered the Carolinas I could see a justification for this but there is no close association between the states and the Spanish language. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that each of these is linked once, in both cases as part of a citation. This strikes me as a weird choice but if there's a reason for it we may be missing some usage of this which would justify the redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and this is a SPANISH redirect. If these is a Spanish speaker using this Wikipedia, they should instead go to the Spanish Wikipedia page. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
@OneReaction5890: These redirects are not for the benefit of Spanish speakers, rather they are for English speakers who may come across a topic in a language in which they are not familiar and may want to know what it is. Spanish is a common language in the Carolinas so this is a plausible occurrence. Please see WP:RFOREIGN for more information. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 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 Oxford Companion to Military History

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 and restore, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:RETURNTORED, making it easier to navigate and evaluate redlinks in Oxford Companions Whonting (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The Oxford Companion to the Mind was BLARed in 2022 by Onel5969 with the rationale that it didn't pass GNG, so if the only reason for deletion is RETURNTORED that should instead be restored. I have not myself evaluated the pre-BLAR article and have no opinion on whether it's notable/worth restoring in and of itself. Rusalkii (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:36, 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).

Andros the invincible

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 💬 03:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Minor character who is not mentioned in list. A search online shows mentions of him in Harry Potter video games and on Pottermore but I couldn't find evidence that the character is mentioned in the books or films and I couldn't find a Harry Potter related article that mentions him. Suonii180 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Minor character (so Criterion 10 doesn't apply), not mentioned at target. Tevildo (talk) 17:11, 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).

Genera of Eobaataridae

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 💬 03:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per reason 10 (WP:RETURNTORED: "...could plausibly be expanded into an article..."). The target page does not discuss the redirect subjects in depth. Per WP:NSPECIES, which is broadly applied to extinct taxa as well by WP:PALAEO, all species (and the genera containing them) are considered notable. Genera/species should not be redirected to their parent taxa, as this discourages their creation (WP:RED; there is no indication that the page in question needs to be created). -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:47, 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).

Skmrrr

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 songs recorded by Kanye West#Skurrr. I've created the anchor and SkurrrSkurrr, which I'll mark this an avoided double redirect against. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Not mention in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Per third-party sources, it seems this redirect refers to a song that was not released in the target's subject (an album), but without context in the target article, readers will find no information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 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).

Taheen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 19#Taheen

Can-toi

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect without any mention ZFT (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete if the subject is not notable enough to be explained in the target article. ZFT (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Multiple articles say that the term refers to the Low Men in Yellow Coats, however that section also doesn't have mention. It is in fact fully unsourced, and I have tagged the section as such. Delete. Jay 05:48, 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).

Chypixel

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 without prejudice against undeletion or recreation if the mention is restored. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparently a fan nickname for the Chinese version of Hypixel (a Minecraft server) for which I could find no reliable sources for online. A mention for this name existed at the target article which I removed seeing as it was unsourced and could possibly be interpreted as offensive or problematic. ~Liancetalk 02:33, 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).

"Paris"

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 19#"Paris"

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI