Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2026.

coaf

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 COAF and Retarget Coaf to COAF. The page history of COAF confirms no primary topic, with this redirect having targeted each of these pages, for years. One 2007–2011, the other 2011–present. One is primary topic in Brazil, the other is primary topic in Armenia, but English Wikipedia is read all over the world. wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Special:Search/coaf and pageviews do not show a primary topic. While Armenia has more page views (398 versus 98 in the last 30 days), COAF appears mentioned more referring to Brazil through Wikipedia Dudzcar (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Target Children of Armenia Fund and add a {{redirect}} hatnote. The all time traffic averages to 7 views a day for Children of Armenia Fund compared to 3 a day for Council for Financial Activities Control, which suggests a reader is more than twice as likely to to be looking for the former. Unless the acronym is also ambiguous for a third topic, I think a hatnote can handle the ambiguity. Children of Armenia Fund has no hatnotes presently, so there's no risk of excessive clutter. – Scyrme (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Phonetically, "Coaf" could sound similar to "Coif", and thus could a potentially plausible phonetic misspelling. (I'm saying this specifically for the word with lowercase letters, not the all-caps acronym.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
It also reminds me of cough (wikt:coff). putting coaf into search box gives Cyril Coaffee and Coaffinity purification. Dudzcar (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate A websearch shows "Capital One Auto Finance"; which is a topic covered at Capital One; so there are at least three topics here. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that the single passing mention of "Capital One Auto Finance" counts as covering the topic. WP:DABMENTION states that if a topic is discussed in another article a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Would the mention at Capital One really provide value to the reader? I suppose it does at least say that "Capital One Auto Finance" was previously a separate company by the name of "PeopleFirst Finance". I wouldn't object to a disambiguation page at COAF if other editors think the mention at Capital One is sufficiently informative to warrant linking. – Scyrme (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambig I'm not seeing evidence of a primary topic here, regardless of whether the Capital One is suitable for an entry on the dab or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete coaf and disambiguate COAF. The lower-case version isn't needed for either searching or linking, and the handful of reasonable topics for the acronym seem to have nothing primary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
    If the searching is done by typing, I would assume many people wouldn't capitalize it, so it would be helpful to them. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    Council for Financial Activities Control, different from the other one, is mentioned more as Coaf than it is mentioned as COAF. Dudzcar (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep coaf and disambiguate COAF. Interestingly, searching pages containing (Coaf) gives 4 references to Council for Financial Activities Control (or variation) but none for Children of Armenia Fund, while searching pages containing (COAF) gives about 10 references to Children of Armenia Fund and about 5 references to Council for Financial Activities Control. This does not include mentions that refer to something that isn't currently an article. There are no uses of (coaf), article or not. These searches do not include non-initialism uses (though I do not see any that would be suitable for disambiguation). It seems that the casing makes a difference. After all, https://www.gov.br/coaf/pt-br indicates usage of "Coaf" for Council for Financial Activities Control, but with the exception of the URL https://coaf.org, I could not find much evidence that Children of Armenia Fund uses "Coaf" as frequently. In conclusion, while "COAF" has multiple possible topics of which there probably isn't a primary topic, "Coaf" in its lowercase capitalization more likely refers to Council for Financial Activities Control than other topics. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
    That means, if Coaf kept, it warrants a hatnote in the target page, right? Dudzcar (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    It probably would. If more than two meanings of "COAF" are found, the hatnote should refer to COAF (disambiguation) (as an intentional disambiguation link to COAF). If only two meanings are identified, a link to Children of Armenia Fund would be sufficient. The choice of different targets comes to WP:DIFFCAPS. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Do not delete Coaf if COAF is not deleted. At minimum, if COAF has a target or is a disambiguation page, Coaf should be synced with it. Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 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).

Asychis

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. AsukhisAsukhis created separately. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Asychis's identification as Shepseskaf is somewhat debated with some identifying him with Sheshonq I. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 18:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure but ... this seems not like an argument for deletion but for the creation of a disambiguation page that points to each tine of the fork in this debate? Ford MF (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
a disambiguate page would not be the right option, this should be its own article which explains the debate and summarizes what Herodotus says about Asychis. but I cannot be bothered to do that so as a temporary solution I think like the Redirect should be deleted altogether until someone makes that article. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 23:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "I can't be bothered to do the optimal thing" is a coherent argument for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
My rationale is that a disambiguation page would be confusing and is not typically how we deal with these sorts of things and a redirect would be misleading. so the hierarchy of preference is Redirect → Disambiguate → Deletion → Full page and because a full page cannot be made deletion is the next best choice for now. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 16:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Create a redirect Asukhis to the same target, tag it as {{R from another name}}, and tag Asychis as {{R avoided double redirect}} of Asukhis. But when we have sufficient content at Sheshonq I, this may be made a disambiguation page per Ford, in a non-confusing manner! If the Asychis debate has article scope, a draft can be independently written and can overwrite the dab. Jay 💬 14:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 00:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Jay, except the two redirs should target #Asukhis on that page, which is a section we should make on that page for the paragraph about "Asukhis". Sheshonq I can also be mentioned in that section. This is the best solution given the limitation that none of us are going to lock in and write a whole page on the Asukhis mystery (and Asukhis doesn't occur on the Sheshonq page at time of writing). Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
A redirect to section is a good solution that I never considered PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 16:18, 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).

Amazon Fulfillment Centre YYZ-1

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 JFK8 and JFK8 warehouse to Amazon Labor Union#JFK8 warehouse and delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The current target page has been partially merged to Amazon (company)#Operations per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amazon locations but the list of individual Amazon fulfillment centers has been deleted per consensus at the AfD. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target has been merged, so in effect these redirects currently target Amazon (company).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, these effectively target Amazon (company), though for some reason (perhaps due to the RfD tag?) none of the bots that usually deal with double redirects have intervened. Anyway, as nom I agree with Thryduulf's proposed retarget for the JFK warehouses and his lack of conviction regarding the sole existing mention as a potential target for the YYZ ones, which should all be deleted IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 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).

OMGWTF

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) 10:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:XY situation between OMG and WTF; "OMFG" is mentioned at target but not "OMGWTF". 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment Rather than a WP:XY isn't this just shorthand for "Oh my God, what the fuck?" Easy enough to add it to Fuck#Modern usage if it's worth mentioning. Meters (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, it's easy enough to add, but should it be? (no) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not pushing for its inclusion. I'm just pointing out that the OP's reasoning for removing it is faulty. Meters (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Meters, this is actually pointing at the correct target and there is no XY situation. OMGWTF means WTF not OMG. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target, and of extremely little utility anyway. Its existence gets in the way of searches for the term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (or disambiguate). Fuck § Modern usage would not be a surprising target as though it doesn't mention OMGWTF, it does mention both WTF and OMG. However, the title is ambiguous for an EP listed at DJ Umek discography and mentioned in passing at DJ Umek; readers may be plausibly searching for that. The existence of the redirect obscures these results.
    Though Fuck § Modern usage wouldn't be surprisingly, it also doesn't offer any substantial discussion of the phrase OMGWTF so it wouldn't really be appropriate for disambiguation. That leaves a list entry at DJ Umek discography, which provides only a little further information beyond the title consisting of details like the the publishing label and year of release. Altogether, this just doesn't seem like there's enough here to warrant a disambiguation page. If others disagree, I wouldn't object to disambiguation; I just lean towards deletion. – Scyrme (talk) 05:29, 23 May 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).

Coiffe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 10:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The spelling variant seems to have an exclusive connection to Coiffure, which is a redirect towards Hairstyle. However, the redirect is not mentioned there specifically, this almost becomes somewhat of a WP:NOTDICT situation if the nominated redirect targets Hairstyle. Without being said, my preferences for this redirect are "delete" or "weak retarget to Hairstyle". Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Hairstyle - I think this is a plausible search term related to Coiffure. Asteramellus (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete entirely. To me, it looks like an entirely arbitrary misspelling that doesn't necessarily translate to, or refer to, that particular hairstyle in mind. I don't think it would provide any value to searchers or readers. It's just taking up space with no real justification, it's best to delete it. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Based on Google results such as I think this can mean both the hat and the hair. As can coiffure, it seems! Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep coiffe. The external search results I see are overwhelmingly for types of headdress (coif), not hairstyles in general. The dictionary.com link provided by Dingolover6969 simply defines it as a variant of coiffure, but as they noted, dictionary.com provides two definitions for coiffure making it ambiguous between the headdress and the synonym for hairstyle. However, looking closer, all but one of the examples of usage quoted by dictionary.com for "coiffe" are clearly references to the headdress. The only one which isn't is a quote from the LA Times about a "shaggy coiffe", which I'm fairly sure actually intends for quiff.
As far as I can tell, the ambiguous term here is coiffure, not coiffe, though external search results suggest that the primary topic for coiffure is hairstyle, so it already redirects to the appropriate target and the ambiguity should be resolved using a hatnote per WP:ONEOTHER. – Scyrme (talk) 15:11, 25 May 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).

Template:CHN/doc

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) 20:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would have naïvely expected this to be the doc subpage for Template:CHN (a flag template) rather than for it to redirect to Template:CollegeHockeyNews. As it is, Template:CHN renders its documentation using {{Flag template documentation}}, which happens to itself call {{documentation}}. So if we were to replace this with a call to {{Flag template documentation}}, what we would essentially be doing is calling {{documentation}} inside of itself, which would probably break the template, although I don't know for sure. There seems to be no good way to repurpose this as a legitimate doc page, except perhaps by manually copy-pasting the documentation and/or by reworking {{Flag template documentation}} to add an optional parameter that disables the call to {{documentation}}. So I suggest deletion for the time being. Duckmather (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it seems bad to have the shortcut be a different template that independently exists. I also support deleting it. Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 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).

Kurva

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Kurva

list of kaiju (creatures)

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. If someone is interested in working on it, let me know and I'll move it to draft for you. -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

ignoring both pre-blar states of the list of kaiju creatures (one was unsourced listcruft, the other was a dupe), the unnecessary move, and how surprisingly vague this is (gaismagorm is a kaiju, right?), there's no list of kaiju here :c consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Restore the "unsourced listcruft" version of List of kaiju creatures and then move it to List of kaiju. This has the benefit of being, in fact, a list of kaiju. Maybe someone will even add sources to it eventually! If we don't do that, we should just delete both pages. Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
not sure that would work. for starters, a lot of the links are misleading (i.e. "bagan" links to the article on the city in myanmar, which is not a kaiju) or inserted by mistake (i.e. "termite queen" links to termite queen, as in literal termite queens), so it'd require going through everything, at which point just checking which kaiju have significant mentions across all kaiju-related articles and making a list based on that would genuinely be easier consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: On reading the kaiju article, what is or is not a kaiju seems complicated. The article goes on about various monster movies and seems to be a bit back and forth on whether or not. The article is currently a mish-mash of films outside of Japan that don't seem to have in-depth discussion of them as Kaiju or what makes Kaiju different (or even the same) from other monster movies or giant monster movies not made in Japan. Regardless, the current article is probably a better focus area of clean-up than attempting to list something that does not seem to be clearly defined by its own main article even in generic terms. ~2026-31723-35 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean delete. The topic is notable and coherent enough that we could and perhaps even should have a standalone list. However, the nom and the IP/temp editor raise several issues which indicate some difficulty in defining inclusion criteria (WP:SELCRIT) and that the historical content may be a poor basis for composing a suitable list article. As an alternative to deletion, one may consider draftification. That option is most viable when one or a group of editors has stepped forward with a willingness to work on said draft. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This sounds like an AfD candidate. The list was BLARd as a fix for vandalism of one particular editor (now blocked) who made around 10 edits during May-Jun 2018, which was 10 years after the list article was started. While the BLARing helped control the mess at the time, any edits by the editor may be reverted now. Jay 💬 05:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    not feeling that either, honestly. ignoring the usual spiel about pre-blar content, the list itself had the aforementioned issues of being a crufty mess with wrong links all over it that would require more effort to fix than to remake from scratch, so taking it back to mainspace for an afd wouldn't make too much sense. really, i don't think it's by much that it would avoid being a g1 consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:25, 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).

Howl from Beyond the Fog

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) 21:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

2019 short film. pretty neat. not mentioned, though. was deleted in this afd and then recreated as a redirect by a sock, but i'm not sure the timelines match consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 18:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Seems that the film itself is still not notable anyways and this evasion of the afd outcome via redirecting is problematic. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom. Maybe someone will remake the proper page again with real sourcing someday. No point having this redir in the meantime. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
delete per nom, can always be created by someone who wants to explain what it is or find discussion on it. ~2026-31723-35 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 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).

Template:Chinese

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 15#Template:Chinese

Two+Two (2016 film)

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) 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

These were all redirects to the unreleased film Jhol, which itself was recently closed as Redirect at AfD. I therefore propose Delete for these unnecessary redirects, as they serve no useful purpose.

  • Two+Two (2016 film)
  • Two+Two (2017 film)
  • Two+Two (2018 film)
  • Two+Two (unreleased film) Umais🗣 18:26, 22 May 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).

Frozen 3 (2027 film)

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 WP:R2, which can be used in the future for this class of redirect. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

deletion per double redirect and db:r2. Hurricanemaster089 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 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).

Carterson

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. Notwithstanding that AfD would have been a better venue, nothing here suggests to me that RfD was an inappropriate one. In this discussion, I see serious concerns about both the notability of the subject and the circumstances around the article's creation, leading me to conclude another round at AfD would not be productive. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirects to List of hip-hop musicians, however, I removed the target from that list as Carterson does not have a Wikipedia article (as decided at AfD). InfernoHues (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  • If you want deletion, that would require restoration of the article and a new AfD (as it was soft deleted at AfD then restored: in effect a contested PROD). J947 ‡ edits 09:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • To clarify the above comments (as it took me a moment). There is an article in the history of the Carterson redirect about a hip-hop musician that was soft deleted, restored about three weeks later and then BLARed circa 10 months after that (this nomination comes about 14 months after the BLAR). The BLAR left the link in the target article redirecting back to itself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore and AfD this version (the latest version before the BLAR) per the above Duckmather (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    The article creator had all of their article creations deleted via WP:LLMPROD, except for this one, as it was already a redirect. I'm not super familiar with redirects, so if restoring and a new AfD is the way to go then I'm good with that. But it seems kind of a waste of time given the previous AfD and the user's other article deletions. InfernoHues (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
    @InfernoHues i'll note per this wp:ain discussion that this was only not deleted as an llmprod there because it had already been soft deleted through afd at the time (so as a plain ol' prod), which is to say that it wasn't a redirect then consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
this one's confusing...
the article was initially soft deleted in the afd as promotional and lacking sigcov, undeleted here followed by a request for an explanation of the creator's potential coi with an aggressively indistinct ai seo business thingy (which i couldn't find any evidence of them addressing in any concrete manner that implied that the answer was "i don't have a coi") and ai use (which i'm not entirely willing to believe wasn't at play considering some of the pre-blar content here)
as is, i'm inclined to agree with the afd. a lot of the sources are any mix of primary (interviews or the works themselves), suspiciously similar (citations 1 and 7 say much of the exact same stuff in the exact same format, as do citations 13 and 17), user-generated (genius), promotional (uh, all of them), and too short to be of any use (uh, all of them besides the obviously primary ones). also, citation 14 is now a redirect to free wallet money casino dollar purse money free yay (i will click for free win money)
research of my own only net me a few of the same results, mediciney boy alex carterson doing doctor stuff for a blood drive competition, and reportey girl emily carterson reporting on the medical field's newest goings-ons (hey, did y'all hear that they're putting more money on the richest's wallets?). that is to say, nothing that would suggest that this carterson is particularly notable
as usual, to say that it would require an afd is incorrect and just a waste of time (even though this one has the decency to have more than two sources), so i guess this yapfest will boil down to...
  • delete again per the afd, with no opinion on speedying consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 00:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    ...actually, there's one more thing, and i have no idea what to make of it
    where did the pre-blar content get "carterson escober" from? the yucky poopy stinky bad google ai overview implies he's also known as "carterson escobar", but i've found only one result from a sound engineer marketplace (or something like that) having that as his name and not elaborating (a little importantly, it also says nothing about gbubemi himself), and a few more than one about a child named carter escobar who had issues with cancer
    this would keep me up at night, but i've been sleeping a lot recently, so i'm surprised i haven't fallen asleep midway through writing this. say, my couch is suddenly looking really comfy... consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 00:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    I know you have extremely lax principles regarding appropriate deletion venues, but this is a contested PROD and contested BLAR so RfD is unambiguously not a competent venue. Especially when you are analysing the AIness of the article content - something that AfD is explicitly the place to discuss. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    regardless of any allegations of ai use (which the creator has said here isn't at play, regardless of whether or not i believe it), this is a case where the sources just aren't good enough (again, see the refs that were just copies), and as usual, there's deliberately nothing saying that pre-blar content of any non-speediable nature has to go to the pre-blar content's venue, especially when people have already evaluated it one way or the other(s). applying this same made-up rule separately to discussing the use of ai is also a weird case of synthesis, which would actually be neat to see concretely stated in favor of or against in a policy or guideline like wp:blar, seeing as the policy on ai-written content is now more concrete
    i really hope the assumption of incompetence is accidental, though consard (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    There is consensus that contested BLARs are discussed at AfD. There is consensus that contested PRODs are discussed at AfD. There is consensus that articles which should be deleted due to (alleged) AI use which aren't speediable are discussed at AfD.
    This involves all three. There is nothing made up, there is no synthesis, there is simply no justification for discussion of deletion at any venue other than AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    there's a little problem here. there's also consensus to not do that, and that this procedural nonsense is a waste of time. i can point to discussions of varying recency where it was concluded that restoration would be or was a bad idea
    that is to say, if consensus is torn, what should be done? ideally, turn to policy. if policy deliberately says nothing after that one really messy discussion, what should be done? uh, form consensus, hopefully. if consensus can't be formed? i actually have no idea what, if anything, should be done in this case aside from treating it on a case-by-case basis consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 17:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    Where is the consensus that contested prods can be deleted without AfD?
    Where is the consensus that policy is irrelevant when you don't like it?
    Where is the consensus that articles are redirects? Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    ignoring that no one's actually bothered to contest this by non-procedural means (which doesn't suggest that much analysis of the content was done) aside from the creator with unaddressed coi issues, the consensus is more so that they're not different from any ol' blar in practice. restore if there's usable content, don't restore if there's not, speedy delete if a pesky csd is in the way
    that's like the third time you try to pull this trick this month, it's more disingenuous than mine lmao. regardless of whether or not i "like it" (i think it's just fine, really), policy doesn't say what you say it says, and it doesn't say the opposite of what you say either, because it actively doesn't take a stance about where those things have to go. it says that's the preferred outcome for when a blar is contested, but not that that's what has to happen, nor does it account for restoration itself being contested (because that's a thing that can happen) or for the blar not being contested (to which attributing inherency to not being the case, as has already happened, is outright wrong)
    regardless of consensus that redirects (and soft redirects) go to rfd (which exists via discussions like this not being speedy closed as wrong venue), there's a guideline that states that redirects (and soft redirects) go to rfd. if you need to staple caveats to that without a policy or guideline that supports it, it's effectively a headcanon being applied to straightforward categorizations with barely-veiled aspersions used as justification (hopefully still accidentally)
    i spent a not-insignificant amount of time looking into whether "inherence" or "inherency" would be morer correcter here, why do they have to be so slightly different in definition~? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Consarn. Unlike those wanting restoration purely for procedural purposes, Consarn has engaged in the central question of notability. If someone is able to make an argument that Carterson is notable, I may reconsider. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
i'll note before this is closed that, of the other articles from the creator, this is the only one that hasn't been deleted as llmprod at least once. since it suffers from the exact same issues as the others, it's likely, then, that it'd have been deleted as one for the same reason ages ago consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 14:33, 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).

Cukember

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. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

results were primarily usernames and bad puns. they also weren't generally puns on the word "cucumber", or anything that would suggest that this is a plausible synonym consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. I didn't find any bad puns (unfortunately) in my search results but almost all the results I did find were usernames (including one forum's list of users with "names that remind you of food and drink", which reminded me that we have or had (either here or at meta) a similar list that included Ham II, Coffee and many others but I've spent 10 minutes failing to find it so it may have been deleted). is a genuine use ("cool as a cukember") but that was one of hardly any - on the first five pages there were more hits in Spanish related to a menu item containing avocado and "cukember" than there were English results that weren't usernames. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Deletember. Looks like a made-up name of a month. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this is probably intended as a phonetic misspelling in... some accent, not a pun. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I suppose that's plausible in accents where "cook" rhymes with "nuke" or "Luke". However I'm not seeing any evidence that it is a common pronunciation spelling. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
wait, why those? nuke's pronunciation does differ with certain accents (uːk or juːk), and luke is even more sort of different (uːk, uk, ʉk, or ɪu̯k depending on the accent). maybe "puke" would've worked as one that seems to rhyme in every applicable accent, and "look" as one that doesn't
unless this was a mixup between "cuke" and "cook", in which case whoops consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:21, 26 May 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).

Cyook

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. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

vague among a lot of people with the surname "yook", youtube poop-shaped jokes, and misspellings of words like "cute", "cook", and the prefix "cryo-". not in that list were cucumbers consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. I got a different set of results, with no youtube jokes (poop-shaped or otherwise) but lots of people with the surname "Cyook", people named "C Yook", and misspellings of "cook". The closest I came to finding anything relevant was a Threads post Half a cucumber is actually called a “cuke,” like “cyook.” It’s funner to say. but even that's just a pronunciation respelling of a protologism. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article history shows this was intended to be an alternate spelling of cuke, but it's a novel (mis)spelling, and pageviews have been minimal. Since its creation in 2018, it has averaged one pageview per month. - Eureka Lott 15:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 23 May 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).

Sya Chaman

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 6#Sya Chaman

Regressive right

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was consensus that Alt-right is not a right target. Some participants didn't favour deletion and suggested Reactionary as an alternate target instead, to which I'm retargeting. Jay 💬 18:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure on Reactionary as a viable target. I see what you mean with a potential target though since it says in the lede that reactionism is a tradition in the right. --Lenticel (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 09:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Reactionary. Yes, that makes sense to me. Its lede mentions "a restoration of a previous state of society" and a tradition in right-wing politics. RegressivismRegressivism should probably be retargeted there too. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Dingolover6969: Why not retarget to Reactionary, which is the target for anti-progressive, anti-progressivism, and regressive conservative? – Scyrme (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    That's a fair question. I don't think we should have any of those unless there is reliably sourced usage on the target page. They seem to much like technical terms (in the domain of politics) for us to be throwing around at our whim. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you say they're "technical terms". They're all just words for people who advocate a restoration of a previous state of society. – Scyrme (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    Well, I'm saying they "seem to[o] much like technical terms", not that they are. Political terms that seem like synonyms often don't work that way in practice. For instance, to assume the opposite for the sake of argument, one might think "regressivism" just means ~"going back", as does "reactionism", so they should be linked together as synonyms; but in the space of terms for political ideologies, which typically have quite arbitrary names, things are not generally so simple. For example, "Regressive left", instead of purely trying to refer to a (postulated for the sake of my argument) regressive progressive or, that is, backwards-going forward-goer(!), is in fact (according to our page) "a pejorative term to describe by its proponents a branch of left-wing politics that is accused of being accepting of, or sympathetic to, views that conflict with liberal principles, particularly by tolerating Islamism and other authoritarian positions, like promoting censorship". That's sort of like a backwards-going forwards-goer, but in a very specific way. So, one can't just assume descriptive terms will work as normal in terms describing political ideologies. This means, to me, that we shouldn't try to supply such description combinations unless they are attested or patent obvious. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 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).

Cod cheeks

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 Cod as food#Cod. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection unclear between the redirect and target. Also, Cod cheek does not exist. However, the phrase "cod cheek" is mentioned at Cod as food#Cod (what an odd name for a section compared to its article title); also apparently related, the redirect Fish cheekFish cheek redirects to Fish head. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No action proposed yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 09:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
retarget to Cod as food#Cod (or possibly a new vanchor therein?), which has the virtue of actually explaining what a cod cheek is, at least. If you found this dish on a menu (or in a book) and decided to search Wikipedia for it, you'd get a good result thus. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 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).

Aryan Nationalism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, retarget to Aryanism. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 02:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Not what this is called; the product of a short lived and bad move. Honestly, this is kind of the opposite of what this is, pan-white white supremacy or "white nationalism" was coined in opposition to the "Aryan" terminology. Searches entirely turn up references to either Indian nationalism or Nazi Germany, not the subject of this article, which is about "pan-white" racism as a collective, post-war. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Would Aryanism work as a target? Or should the target specifically deal with pan-Aryan nationalism? Note, pan-Aryan redirects to Aryan race, and there is no redirect or article at Pan-Aryan nationalism. – Scyrme (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Aryanism is probably closer to what the results suggest. Wouldn't object to targeting it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 09:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
I am not sure about the history you reference here but I would just delete this seeing how it's not mentioned on the page (either candidate target page, in fact). It may be possible to easily find a source to get it on the page, however. Dingolover6969 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
The redirect was the result of a reverted page move, and it was the article title for only 30 minutes in 2012. Either retarget to Aryanism or to Nationalism § Germany. It is odd however that German nationalism does not mention "Aryan"! Aryan supremacy also redirected to White supremacy for many years until it was retargeted boldly to Aryanism. I'm not sure about what history reference Dingolover is referring to. Jay 💬 08:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I'd rather not retarget to Nationalism § Germany since Aryan nationalism & race ideology didn't originate in Germany & was not confined to Germany, though it now has a very strong association with Nazi Germany for obvious reasons. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 09:48, 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).

Traction Company

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#Traction Company

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 3#Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

Ms. Clinton

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus on both redirects. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlike Mr Lincoln, I'm not sure if Hillary's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this ambiguous term since she's not specifically well known by it. Note also that Mr. Clinton redirects to Clinton, despite Bill being more notable than his wife. I'm in favour of retargeting to Clinton. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - I think this the reasonable stance is delete. I definitely agree it's ambiguous per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if Hillary Clinton is in fact the main subject here. It could be a variety of other people, including obscure figures who aren't too well known by the public. I wouldn't suggest retargeting either due to the specificity of the title, notably the "Ms.", "Mrs.", and "Mrs" aspects. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Should Mr. Clinton and its variants also be deleted then, @HarvardJock? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@Bis-Serjetà?: do you want Mr. Clinton bundled here as related, or taken up separately? Jay 💬 04:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
@Jay I'm not opposed to bundling it, so sure why not? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 22:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Mrs and Mrs. contrary to the evidence-free assertions above, Hillary actually is the very clear primary topic for these search terms - only two results on the first 8 pages when googling for "Mrs. Clinton" -Wikipedia were not about Hillary, one was related to a non-notable primary school teacher in my local area and the other was a picture caption of a group of elderly and middle-aged non-notable women in the early 1950s (when Hillary was about 5 years old). Retarget Ms. to Clinton, as there is no primary topic for that term (Hillary and Chelsea are the most common two, but there are others) but people will find whichever notable person they are looking for at that target, search results are not useful as our articles to not refer to people by title and surname in the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not bundling Mr. Clinton, as it has a different target and different ambiguity problems (George Clinton (vice president) rather than Chelsea Clinton). The only relation to these redirects is familial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep Mrs and Mrs. as Hillary Clinton is the primary topic, and I am pretty sure "Mrs/Mrs. Clinton" is the factual correct one over "Ms Clinton" as "Mrs/Mrs." often refers to married women who have taken their husbands last name, whereas "Ms." doesn't signal marital status, but is common with married women who kept their maiden names. Weak Keep Ms. Clinton as I said, she is the primary topic and in regards to Chelsea, she is basically the Matriarch of her descendency. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Clinton per nom. "Ms," "Mrs.," and "Mrs" are all equally ambiguous in my mind. I don't see a reason to delete here, as, theoretically, any notable woman with the surname Clinton could be referred to by one of those three prefixes depending on their marital status. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    Theoretically any such person could be referred to in this manner, but in practice one person is referred to as "Mrs. Clinton" far more often than any other notable person to the extent that Hillary is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, Hillary is the primary topic. There's plenty of sources that use the name when searching. -- Tavix (talk) 23:58, 25 May 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).

Junior burger

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 💬 08:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This product name does not appear to be unique only to McDonald's and is actually a rather generic term that most burger places will use for their smaller or kid's menu burger offering. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete, term is not solely used by McDonald's. Suonii180 (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Suoni180. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:38, 26 May 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).

Streen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 6#Streen

Draft:IOS Tventy

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 💬 04:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a procedural nomination because Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:IOS Tventy was closed for being in the wrong venue. The original rationale by @Cosmic840 is as follows:

implausible typo or misnomer

I may or may not leave my own !vote below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as both highly implausible and potentially misleading. It was initially created targeting iOS 20 (for which I suppose it might arguably have been almost plausible!) but that redirect was subsequently draftified and more recently moved, hence the current target as an avoided double redirect. Alternatively, move to Draft:iOS Tventyseffen without leaving a redirect! (This comment is ironic.) Rosbif73 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 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).

Help:Wiki Education

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 💬 04:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Recently userfied per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Wiki Education. This does not belong in Help: namespace and this WP:XNR is unhelpful and potentially misleading; use of the redirect in discussion pages should not be encouraged. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is fun, since I participate in both MfD and RfD. Get to see this twice. Delete, or speedy delete if possible. I feel like G6 could handle this. Regardless, MfD discussion already came to a conclusion and the redirect is not helpful. Should have been moved without redirect. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G6 (not tagging since I'm not a fan of tagging things under discussion other than disruptive things). I feel like this should have been closed by someone with suppressredirect or self tagged for deletion by the closer. Skynxnex (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    Striking speedy (and fixing a silly typo) after rethinking and Thryduulf's comments. Skynxnex (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Not eligible for speedy deletion. The page was intentionally created in this location so it was not an error, the MfD did not discuss either leaving or not leaving a redirect so there is no prior consensus about it and the MfD closer was accordingly well within their discretion to not suppress the redirect. It is recently created, but it's not implausible and it's not in the main namespace so neither R2 or R3 apply. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a helpful redirect given the outcome of the MfD. I can see arguments either way for an equivalent redirect from the Wikipedia namespace, so this should not be taken as establishing a consensus on such a redirect if one is created in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete-ish, per Thryduulf. I accept those caveats, but I don't think this redirect should stay in help-space. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Help space is for how-to and information pages and should not redirect to a user essay with no particular consensus. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 27 May 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).

You're hired!

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 You're Hired. I'll retarget you're hired and You're Hired! there as well. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This article should be deleted or retargeted to Recruitment, because other than the famous "You're fired!" catchphrase, I have no idea what the article has to do with the redirect phrase. I don't think this is helpful. ~2026-23866-24 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • The target article says that "the final episode of each series, [was] on occasion dubbed The Apprentice: You're Hired," and You're Hired!You're Hired! also points there. You're Hired (without the exclamation point) is a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 00:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab at You're Hired where the current target can be found with appropriate context. The other entry there also seems plausible to be referred to with an exclamation mark. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting to You're Hired?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
More information Unrelated closing and reopening comments ...
Close
  • See also: You're hired → You're Hired (TV series) and You're Hired! → The Apprentice: You're Fired!. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    At the very least those articles need hatnotes to each other, but maybe a dab is in order? Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I think what Mathguy is trying to say is that the outcome of You're hired! should be applied to You're Hired! too. Which makes sense as both redirects were created at the same time by the same creator to the same target. No opinion on retargeting to the dab vs hatnoting at both targets. Jay 💬 04:16, 29 May 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).

Kazıklı bey

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 01:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

apparently an alternative form of "Kazıklı Voyvoda" (turkish for "impaler voivode"), with this one being more on the side of "imapler master", "impaler lord" (the translation the target uses for the former), or "mr. stabbypants", but this doesn't seem to see much use when referring to the real life vlad (or even this specific vlad the impaler)... or many uses at all, seeing as one of the first results seems to relate to some league of legends player consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as it's not an alternative English-language name for Vlad the Impaler. Per WP:RFOREIGN, redirect pages in different languages should not be kept on English Wikipedia, this is a very clear cut-and-dry case of that. Readers who search for this term would be, ideally, directed to the Turkish wikipedia article of this figure, if such an article exists. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppeteer Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:RFOREIGN does not say that all non-English redirects should not be kept. In-fact, it gives a list of some appropriate examples of non-English redirects. Per the results I found on Google Books, which indicated some use even outside Turkish-language sources, I don't agree that this is a cut-and-dry case. – Scyrme (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Redirect shows reasonable traffic. Google Books brings up a handful of results, indicating that this title is attested in sources, even if it's not very common. Most of these results were not in the Turkish language (3 were English, though 2 were translations of Hideyuki Kikuchi novels), suggesting this title is likely to occur in sources independently of the original language and therefore may be assumed as to be a reasonable search term even for non-Turkish speaking readers looking for more information (particularly about his interactions with and campaigns against the Ottomans). – Scyrme (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
i should note that some of the really few results i found were about count dracula. how important this is is beyond me, but in case of doubt, i'll assume "not very"
that said, the traffic is definitely lacking, suggesting that people may instead be looking for the not very popular other stuff, like the novels consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 20:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Regarding Dracula, that's probably also the case with the Hideyuki Kikuchi novels. However, the other English result was a book about real-life killers, and was clearly about Vlad III based on the snippet. In-case it's helpful, the other, non-English, results I had were:
  • A Portuguese novel titled Dracula (possibly a translation of Stoker's book?), however Kazıklı bey occurs in a prologue written in first person where the speaker identifies himself as Vlad III, listing this as one of his titles (fairly sure this isn't part of Stoker's book).
  • A second Portuguese result, clearly about Vlad III, not Dracula, based on the snippet's content.
  • A Romanian book, titled În căutarea lui Dracula ('In search of Dracula'), which is about Vlad III but seems to be in that genre of histories about Vlad III which try to establish him as the inspiration for Bram Stoker's character, or at least exploit the association of Dracula with Vlad III to invite attention.
  • A work in Estonian, unambiguously about Vlad III, explicitly naming him as Vlad III and providing his other more common epithets (Țepeș and Kazıklı Voyvoda) in addition to the one in question.
  • A Turkish language result, also unambiguously about Vlad III since it occurs as part of a sentence about his brother Radu, where Radu is identified as the brother of Kazıklı bey.
Of these, the ones which are about or discuss Dracula do so in association with Vlad III, and bring up the title Kazıklı bey in relation to the latter. I think any association with Count Dracula is more in relation to people generally associating the character with the historical Vlad III, rather than there being some particularly strong association between this epithet and the character. – Scyrme (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Regarding people searching for novels, all the uses I found occurred in the text of these works not in their titles. It doesn't seem very likely to me that someone would use this to search for a fictionalised version of Vlad III or Count Dracula, since the epithet isn't reliably associated only with the character, and in general appears to only be associated with the character through the character's association with Vlad III in the first place. – Scyrme (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above. But I think I have an idea where this came from. Kazıklı Bey is the trump card (Called Noble Phantasm) of the Heroic Spirit Vlad in the game Fate Grand Order and associated media. --Lenticel (talk) 08:47, 23 May 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).

Reactive homeostasis

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! 02:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the article in question, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. Redirects to a section that was deleted after a 2016 overhaul of the page. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Sources about this topic exist, but there's no substantive content on Wikipedia to redirect to; WP:RETURNTORED. – Scyrme (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This used to be an article that was merged, and I've tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Also notified of this discussion at the target. Jay 💬 07:32, 14 May 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) 07:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it was merged, then it should be kept to provide verifiable attribution per WP:ATTREQ. While the content does not seem to be present in the latest revision, it is present in older revisions which are still accessible via the page history. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scyrme. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scyrme --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scyrme and also because this redirect is now just a subtopic, no? Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 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).

Ubac

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 Raoul Ubac. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

refers to the shady side of a mountain. undiscussed and doesn't seem to take priority over just referring to it as the shady side, so i'm not sure a soft redirect to wiktionary would work consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggested target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget and hatnote per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget and hatnote per J947 --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 23 May 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).

August O'Neil

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Minor character who isn't mentioned in the list and I couldn't find the name on another Wikipedia article. Suonii180 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: the pre-BLAR version said August O'Neil is also known as Uncle Augie, who is mentioned at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) season 2 and season 4, and is piped to the redirect in Season 2. Jay 💬 17:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
More information Unrelated closing and reopening comments ...
Close
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).

Unmentioned Aboriginal Australian place names

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. No prejudice against recreation if verification can be demonstrated with a sourced addition. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

All created by the same user around the same time (along with some others that were mentioned which I didn't nominate), none of these are mentioned. They may or may not be accurate, but there's currently no mention, so they should be deleted. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 3#Googoormuckup –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete: I see two possibilities here. The first, AGFing possibility is that these are real names that were selected by the creating editor because they sound like funny phrases in English. Since they go unmentioned, we should be suspicious of this and delete pending confirmation from RSs. The second, more likely possibility is that these are fake. In that case, deletion also applies. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Some I think are legit, some are hard to verify...there were a number of creations from the same user that were already mentioned in articles, so I don't necessarily think this is hoaxing or anything like that. But even the legit ones would require some care about what the place name actually was; it's not just a straight town name-for-town name kind of thing here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
As per the above collapsed block, Kakaroomup is now redirecting to Heirisson Island, and Boodjargabbeelup to Perth Water, where the new targets have mention. The targets of Moorordup, Kaarta Koomba, and Manjaree, now have mention, but all sources added give me Page not Found. Jay 💬 16:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Deleting ones that aren't in the target page is a simple rule that prevents us from going wrong. Now that some LLM claims to be the creator of these, I'm even more worried that they are wrong. Delete all of them that have no mention on the target page or where their mentions cannot be verified. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 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).

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI