Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 16

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 Excursion train. Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Railway excursionRailway excursion → Excursion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:DICDEF currently targeting dab page, no idiomatic use of the term we could link to instead Paradoctor (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to excursion train * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 02:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to excursion train Appears to be the appropriate target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Excursion train does not mention the term, much less define it. Given that excursion trains are a minor subtopic of "railway excursion", redirecting would be at least confusing, at worst misleading. Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Excursion train. Even if it doesn't use the precise phrase "railway excursion", it's basically the same thing and certainly the nearest article to the term. Dab Excursion has no relevant entries other than Grand Excursion: an historic voyage made mainly by ship. Certes (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

basically the same thing Beg pardon? Maybe you have rich parents, but the rest of us, we don't charter a train for our excursions, we buy a ticket. That bit gets lost if you redirect to excursion train. Paradoctor (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to a routine rail trip on a regularly scheduled train as an "excursion". This may vary by country but I'm used to the term meaning a trip on a chartered train, occasionally in expensive spacious luxury but more usually with large numbers of passengers each paying an affordable fare. Certes (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources in support? The dictionaries I consulted say "brief pleasure trip", sometimes also that kind of trip "at reduced rates". Nothing about chartering. Paradoctor (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been unable to find any reliable sources either to support or to refute my suggestion. However, searching Wikipedia for ~"railway excursion" brings up mainly articles about trips which are explicitly or presumably on trains provided specially for the purpose, and these are the pages from which Railway excursionRailway excursion might reasonably be wikilinked. Edited to add: I see Thryduulf has done a better job of finding sources in support below. Certes (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed the "routine" bit. We're not talking about commuting, are we? We're talking about the native equivalent of day tripping. Which links to excursion in See also. Paradoctor (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is a "Railway excursion" any time you take an excursion via railway (I'm not sure if there's a definition of this phrase written anywhere) and an "Excursion train" specifically when you charter a train to make a special trip (per its page)? Is that what you're getting at? If that's the case then I agree the latter is a bad target. I guess I can't prove the definition of the former term one way or another. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Unless and until someone can point out a sourced idiomatic definition of the term, there is only the literal meaning, an excursion by train. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Excursion train, which is the sense in which reliable sources use this term, e.g. , , , . Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 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).

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:G4 — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Delete. This redirect was re-created just two months after it was deleted at RFD. The phrase remains obscure, entirely unmentioned on Wikipedia, and is not linked from anywhere thus it is not a suitable Wiktionary soft redirect. Consider some sort of protection to prevent disruptive re-creation. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete, speedy delete if possible. Is this a G4 I see? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G4. ~2026-35381-94 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and Salt if possible. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tagged as WP:G4. I'm not super familiar with WP:CSDs but I should have looked into this before nominating. I would support SALTing or some other form of protection/restriction. I understand this may not (yet) rise to that level of disruption. Is there a good way to keep an eye on redirects/pages like this? —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:16, 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).

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 Latin obscenity#pēnis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Delete. Random diacritic, no incoming links. ~2026-35339-74 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not random. The English word penis is borrowed from the Latin word pēnis. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per jlwoodwa. The etymology section could use a little copyediting, maybe to mention and wikt link that term, among other improvements... Edit: now that I've been editing that page, I suggest retargetting to Latin_obscenity#pēnis, since I wanted to link to that section and that would be the natural word to use... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Latin_obscenity#pēnis per Dingo. The term is described there in some detail. The diacritic (macron) isn't exactly "random" but corresponds to the Latin entry. Editors at the proposed target could add a link to wikt:penis#Latin if desired; that decision is largely beyond the scope of RFD and the content already at the target at present is more than enough to support this redirect. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:36, 23 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 Politics & Gender. Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Politics and GenderPolitics and Gender → Gender and politics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Politics & Gender as an alternative title. The difference in capitalization is sufficient to distinguish this title from Politics and genderPolitics and gender, currently a redirect to Gender and politics. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC) edited 02:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. A hatnote already exists on Politics & Gender to sort out any disambiguation. मल्ल (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. - Eureka Lott 03:54, 22 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! 20:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Bubsy 4Bubsy 4 → Bubsy 3D  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

now vague with bubsy 4d, which i'm horrified to say is somewhere between demon turf and demon tides in quality, what has this world gone to? we can't just have a good bubsy game like that. and i really love demon turf, so that means- oops, this isn't the time for a crisis of faith consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know about the nomination statement, but there is no Bubsy 4 (nor a Bubsy 3), and Bubsy 4D is NOT the 4th version, so delete. Jay 💬 20:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a typo of Bubsy 4D, but does not look helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  can it really be "clearly a typo" if it predates the game by just under 11 years? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I see why this isn't obvious to the other editors, but I happen to know that Bubsy 3D is the 4th Bubsy game. There is no need to change this redirect. It's not like Bubsy 4D is likely to be thought of as the 4th Bubsy game (even if one mistakenly believed that 3D was the 3rd), given all the other ones that have happened in the meantime... Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hatnotes could be made. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've done this, now. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  In effect I'm arguing directly against @Jay: there is a Bubsy 4 (and a Bubsy 3). Same way there's a Finding Nemo 2 and a Friday the 13th 4. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've struck my vote. Jay 💬 15:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Dingolover6969. Readers searching for this term are most likely searching for the 4th Bubsy game (not making a typo of Bubsy 4D, per consarn), and this is it. This is a plausible search term, as this is an extremely common way to title sequels. Consider tagging as an {{R from incorrect name}}. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've tagged them thus, now. Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:25, 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).

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 12:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Kendall, Tay­lor and Com­pany → Henry H. Kendall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Kendall, Tay­lor & Com­pany → Henry H. Kendall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Refiling Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_15#Zero-width_characters as a series of smaller nominations. These each contain multiple soft hyphens. Redirects with soft hyphens might be useful for long titles, but not this one that has plenty of word break points. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 03:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning keep just to keep everything clean, but I'm not really wedded to either redirect if you want to delete them. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom "Kendall, Tay-lor and Com-pany" is unlikely to line-break in the middle of a word. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:15, 25 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. Whether a typo is sufficiently plausible to justify a redirect is always somewhat subjective, but the headcount favors deletion, and I see no reason to up- or down-weight anything between Paradoctor's keyboard argument and Myceteae's phrase-length argument. That said, no one felt that a redirect would be inappropriate for the correctly-spelled terms in BDD's comment, so I will create both of those. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Illuminati card came → Illuminati: New World Order  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Huh? * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 19:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Clearly a typo for Illuminati card gameIlluminati card game. (N.b., Illuminati (card game)Illuminati (card game) doesn't exist.) Illuminati: New World Order was based on Illuminati (game), though, which is itself a card game, so that's the best target if any. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Plausible typo. Paradoctor (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD, obvious primary topic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete implausible typo near the end of the phrase. No objection to creating Illuminati card game as a redirect to Illuminati (game) as {{R from other disambiguation}}. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Look for C and G on your keyboard. Paradoctor (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  They're not adjacent on mine. Certes (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Close enough: QWERTY. Especially seeing as both are on the left side (same hand), the preceding word primes for "c", and the sounds are similar. Paradoctor (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see them as especially easily to confuse but this is subjective. As I understand it, our usual approach is to lean more towards keeping very common or plausible typos especially from individual words or shorter phrases but not to keep them when they are part of a longer phrase. We don't have Card came, for example. Even for common typos, we don't always keep them when they are part of a much longer phrase. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, implausible typo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Myceteae. Jay 06:51, 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• North Canal → North Canal Historic District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should likely be a disambig. There is also the North Canal Township Park. In China there is zh:北运河 which has no en wiki article yet but that translates as North(ern) Canal. There are likely other such entities around the world. We may also want to create Northern Canal; I am not sure if it should be combined with North Canal redirect, but consider Northern Dvina Canal, Northern Catherine Canal. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Disambig per nom. There is also Canal du Nord, Grand Canal (China)#Northern Canal and Tonghui River, North Canal Township Park, North Sea Canal, multiple entries in List of canals in Oregon. Lawrence, Massachusetts is illustrated with a picture captioned "North Canal" but the waterway isn't mentioned in the title, and there are multiple other articles that mention a north or northern canal in passing. North Channel (disambiguation) should be linked in a see also. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Strong DAB-ify given the variety of canals called "north" referenced in this discussion, and I'd suggest that South Canal also be suggested for DAB-ification for the same reason (although there seem to be fewer possible targets). Shazback (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done). Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does somebody want to draft a dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• DAB drafted Shazback (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support drafted dab --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 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 keep until the article is stable. Whether the award is mentioned in the target article should be determined via normal editorial process, and is the primary point of contention in this RfD. Currently it is in the article, so I am leaving the redirect. Please form a clear consensus, via talk page discussion or dispute resolution processes if necessary, about whether the award should be mentioned in the target page. Once that's determined, if anyone is unhappy with the redirect's existence you can renominate. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Game Show CongressGame Show Congress → Ralph Edwards#Recognition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AFD of this article seemed to point to a consensus to delete, but was redirected to Ralph Edwards instead. However, I feel this decision to redirect did not properly check to see if the claim of him being awarded by this organization was 1. due weight and 2. a cited claim. I was unable to find secondary sources verifying it, so I removed it from Ralph's article, meaning it is no longer mentioned there and not a valid redirect target.

When I asked @Vanamonde93:, who executed the redirect, they pointed out I did not sufficiently argue against it in AFD, which I cannot do due to my partial topic ban. I feel like awkward decisions like this are one of the pitfalls of the "one XFD per day, cannot otherwise participate" clause. Vanamonde93 suggested I take it to RFD instead of DRV, so here we are.

I also feel the decision to redirect does not take into consideration the page's contentious history: it was A7'd, overturned, AFD'd, deleted, and then upheld at DRV, only for me to re-create it anyway to mitigate off-site harassment about 17 years ago. (This alone is something I feel should have been enough to justify deletion over any other ATD.) However, it still had abysmal sourcing, and the contentious page history is still intact. The subject is not mentioned on Ralph Edwards, nor could I find a good enough source to justify doing so, and the redirect as it stands averages one page view per day, so I feel it's time to finally put this out of its misery. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The target doesn't contain the mention because the nominator removed it from the article on 22 May 2026. Katzrockso (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

On its own, that wouldn't be a reason to keep, but I'll note for the record that you restored the mention and said you'll add sources later. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

And now it's been removed again. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Aaand now it's been added back, this time with sources. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Show Congress (2nd nomination), where Katzrockso above was also the one who suggested a redirect. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:31, 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).

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 Azumanga Daioh characters#Kamineko. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Kami NekoKami Neko → Maneki-neko  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

from kami (deity or whatever) and neko (kity). maneki-neko are generally not any more associated with kami than any other cat-shaped japanese folklore thingy (kasha, nekomata, bakeneko, reimu hakurei...), or at all for that matter. really, even the cruftiest results i could find didn't even try to imply a connection, so this wouldn't be a likely result for any of the aforementioned anything even if it wasn't vague

also ptm with a bunch of unnotable stuff like assorted manga consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tag as avoided double redirect of Kamineko? Jay 💬 13:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jay's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Kamineko is a character in the Azumanga Daioh franchise, so what this one is pointed at, some dab is needed. Paradoctor (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Azumanga Daioh characters#Kamineko and tag as avoided double redirect from misspelling. Paradoctor (talk) 15:45, 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).

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 Least developed countries. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 22:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Poorest countryPoorest country → Least developed countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Poorest countriesPoorest countries → List of countries by wealth per adult  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Somewhat related to the nomination on "Poor country", these two redirects should have the same target. These redirects always had different targets since the creation of the plural redirect over 10 years ago. I will note that the list redirects (List of Poorest Countries, Poorest Countries List, List of poorest nations, Poorest countries list) target List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Would probably retarget all of these without "list" to Least developed countries. "Poorest" is a vague enough term I'd consider redirecting the list ones to the effective disambiguation of Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories#Gross domestic product. CMD (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:25, 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).

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 last comment on the talk page discussion was on 21 June. The real question here seems to be the suitability of the CiberCuba article section, not the redirect per se. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• CiberCubaCiberCuba → Independent_digital media in Cuba#CiberCuba  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

TLDR: Possibly self-promotional. This redirect is to an article section about the news outlet CiberCuba that has two CN tags and no independent sources. The redirect serves to give a blue link for a news outlet that doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (first few pages of Google for "CiberCuba" didn't show me anything to establish notability)—so this comes across as self-promotional. It seems to me that the redirect and Independent_digital media in Cuba#CiberCuba should both be deleted. A standalone CiberCuba article was previously nominated for deletion in 2024 and this redirect is a "compromise" outcome of that—but the section it redirects to is still entirely missing independent coverage. In the AfD User:Hydronium Hydroxide said It's probably reasonable for Independent digital media in Cuba#Cibercuba to continue to exist -- though it needs to be properly referenced, etc etc -- and if it is then redirection there as an WP:ATD is preferable to deletion; the status 1.5 years later is that it is not properly referenced Placeholderer (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You know what, "Self-promotion" is really terrible word choice, but I don't know what better category at WP:RFD#DELETE to describe this as. (I'm new to RfD!) It's a notability thing and an apparent revisiting of an earlier discussion Placeholderer (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

keep for now, without prejudice. The article content should be discussed on the talk page first. While the section exists this is an appropriate redirect to it, but if it is removed then the redirect will be misleading and should be nominated for deletion on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that the talk page has averaged 10 views per year for the past 11 years, should I try to notify people who participated in the AfD? I'd be wary of deleting the section BOLDly given that it's tied up in a medium-sized discussion close Placeholderer (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Notifying those people would be good, you could also alert any relevant WikiProjects (e.g. the Cuba and Media projects tag the talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

To be continued at the article's talk page here Placeholderer (talk) 18:44, 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).

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 Democratic Party. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Partido DemocratPartido Democrat → Democratic Party (Curaçao)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

article says Partido Democraat, which is not this title. ambiguous with Democrat (Brazil) and even Democrat (U.S.), since this title is meant to be words of mixed languages. Dudzcar (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep This is a fairly plausible misspelling of the Papiamento name for the target article and it does get uses , (although most commonly in Dutch, which obviously has affinity to Curacao). Most google results though are actually for various parties called Partido Democrático (rendered with or without the diacritic). Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget. There are no parties known by this exact mixed-language title. In addition to Papiamento creole, Partido means party in at least two other languages (Spanish and Portuguese) and there are numerous options on the Democratic Party dab page that could correspond to either Partido Demócrata or Partido Democrático (both of which are equally plausible typos compared to Partido Democraat). That dab would be my preferred target as it favours the English "Democrat" part of the redirect (this is enwiki after all) rather than the Partido Democrático dab which would favour Portuguese over Spanish, and would make it harder to reach the existing Papiamento target. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Democratic Party due to ambiguity. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 14:04, 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).

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 as vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Gilbert de Clare, Dara hIarla Penfro → Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Also (note I am by no means an expert on Ireland or history, so please me if I'm mistaken) it looks like "Dara hIarla Penfro" is a mix of Irish ("Dara hIarla" meaning "second earl") and Welsh ("Penfro" meaning "Pembroke"). But also the second earl of Pembroke was Richard de Clare, not Gilbert de Clare, which means this redirect is also factually incorrect. I suggest deletion unless someone has an explanation. Duckmather (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a blatant hoax. The page was at this title for three minutes in November 2020. ~2026-23381-84 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we can safely say it was a hoax, but that's academic as it was clearly vandalism of some sort. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 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).

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|🤷) 11:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2026 Defection and desertion of Iranian security forces → 2026 Iran war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces → 2026 Iran war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The only mention of defection in the article, in 2026_Iran_war#Third_week_(14–20_March), states "As of the third week, analysts found little evidence of significant defections in the Iranian military". Misleading redirect. मल्ल (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• The article briefly at this title was moved to 2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces and few weeks later it was redirected to 2026 Iran war following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces. - Eureka Lott 15:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note I've bundled the version with a lowercase "defection". Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - this was probably wishful thinking from the start, but it never happened to any appreciable extent. The existence of these redirects create a misleading impression. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 22 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).