Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 2

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. Rusalkii (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sports nicknameSports nickname → Lists of nicknames#Sports nicknames  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It would seem that Athletic nickname would be a much more appropriate target for this currently unused redirect. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. My first thought was to retarget per the nom, but then I saw the target article was about nicknames for collegiate sports teams in the United States - essentially it's a duplicate of List of college team nicknames in the United States but with fewer sources and organised by theme rather than alphabetically by institution. Search results are all for nicknames of (predominantly professional) sports players from around the world, which matches most of the entries at the current target. The college team nicknames article is also present in the list at the current target, I would suggest adding the athletic nickname article there but the duplication needs resolving first as a merge is one option that needs to be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. A person looking for "sports nicknames" seems more likely to be looking for individuals' nicknames rather than team nicknames. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with keep comments above - "Athletic nickname" is too narrow and "Sports nickname" search term is very likely to be used by someone searching for sports nickname in general, not just narrowly athletic nicknames. Asteramellus (talk) 14:11, 6 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 💬 22:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Annihilating prime → List of prime numbers#Annihilating primes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Annihilating primes → List of prime numbers#Annihilating primes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Annihilating prime number → List of prime numbers#Annihilating primes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Annihilating prime numbers → List of prime numbers#Annihilating primes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section target broken as they are no longer mentioned in the article. The section on annihilating prime numbers was removed with the edit summary that they weren't notable (). I wasn't able to find another article which mentions them but maths is not my area of interest so I was unsure what the best solution would be whether that would be keeping or deleting. Suonii180 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. No good place to re-redirect to.

User97104 (t•c•r•l) 20:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 CNET Video. Rusalkii (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Apple ByteApple Byte → CNET#Video  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect page is nonexistent — epicazowski (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to CNET Video where it is mentioned multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

retarget to CNET Video per Thryduulf and that it looks like the best article to match the nonexistent section. (i assume nom was trying to say section because the page CNET definitely does exist, and if it didn't then one might not need to go to RfD) User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 04:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment from 17:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC) until 23:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) this page was untagged. Tag has been restored. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 23:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) 18:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• List of corporate failuresList of corporate failures → List of corporate collapses and scandals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's difficult rationalize this redirect being plausible when the phrase "corporate failure" is nowhere in the target article, in addition to title such as Corporate failure and Corporate failures not existing, meaning the phrase is not defined anywhere on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as a {{R from synonym}}. If I were looking for a list of corporate failures I would not be at all surprised to arrive at the target - a list of corporate failures by a different name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. For descriptive titles like this, redirecting from synonyms is a helpful navigational aid for readers, since they can't necessarily predict the phrasing that the editors who created the article would have preferred. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't understand why anyone would think that a redirect can be useful only if the exact wording of the redirect appears in the target article. In fact if anything a redirect from wording related in meaning to content of an article but not contained in it is likely to be more useful than a redirect from actual wording in the article, because it is less likely to be found from a search. JBW (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Rosencrans Bog Natural AreaRosencrans Bog Natural Area → Rosecrans Bog Natural Area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old redirect created in 2007 misspelled the name (there is no "N" in the middle of Rosecrans). Today I developed the redirect into a full article and fixed the spelling via a page move, resulting in the current leftover redirect. I submit that this misspelling is unlikely so the redirect can be deleted as housekeeping. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by Nominator - Sorry, after just a few minutes of investigation I have found that many sources use the incorrect spelling ("Rosencrans") including some Pennsylvania government websites. So we might as well keep the redirect as a likely misspelling. I don't participate in RfDs too often so I'm not sure about the proper procedure here, but this nomination can be closed and discarded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• 10th Cavalry Division (Soviet Union) → Red Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. A handful of mention enwiki but unsure what the best target would be, or if any adequately describe the topic enough to justify a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this is a much more widespread issue, with dozens of Red Army unit names redirecting to Red Army without any mention of them there. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as it seems subject matter knowledge may be helpful here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

They should have their article(s), but I'm dubious that the redirect is actually useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there is about 150 of them, and on a quick sampling all seem to have been created recently by Crucabuloso who has now been blocked. I feel like the whole lot can be reasonably deleted and returned to redlinks pending a useful article being written. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete If not mentioned in the target article, the redirect is superfluous. Mdewman6, if these other redirects could be compiled (in a sandbox?) we could reasonably treat them en bloc. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's the whole lot: User:Mdewman6/Red_Army_redirects. I agree these should all be deleted, as they were recently created. I have not formally nominated these; I hope the attending admin will agree that there are sufficiently reasonable WP:NOTBURO / WP:IAR arguments that going through and tagging these for Rfd in this situation (all recently created by a blocked user) is not a good use of anyone's time, and can be deleted if such consensus forms here (though there is probably some massxfd thing that could help here- not my wheelhouse). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass XFD might work, I'm not sure, but AWB has been used for mass taggings like this in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete -- should remain as suitable red links. The redirects on Mdewman6's list were recently created by Special:Contributions/Crucabuloso who is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Perhaps a mass WP:G5 could be requested at AN? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think G5 will work, since these were all created before the user was blocked. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What matters is whether the sockmaster was blocked before or after the redirects were created, but I can't tell that from the block log and there are no SPI pages that link to User:Crucabuloso, so pinging @Asilvering: as the blocking admin - was Crucabuloso blocked as a master or a puppet? If the latter, when was the master blocked? Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like that's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LeandroTelesRocha1983, who's been blocked since 2015. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

In which case all of them are G5 eligible. I'll delete this one and leave a request at AN for the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 10 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. Rusalkii (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Arlene (The X-Files) → List of The X-Files characters#Arlene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer listed in article and I couldn't find an X-Files related article which describes character. Suonii180 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not even sure who this is.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• delete seems to be a non-notable supporting cast member according to the fandom wiki --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).