Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 21

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) 05:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Krung Thep Maha Nakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayutthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit Bravo A.F.C. → Bangkok F.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Clearly implausible misnomer for a football club (substituting "Bangkok" with the city's ceremonial name). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No links in article space, not mentioned in the target article, zero Google hits other than this redirect and, very obviously, nobody is ever going to type all that into the search box. My first thought was that it was made by somebody taking the piss but a quick look at their other contributions suggests otherwise. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  let's try getting info from the source~

  @Dancing Hippos so, what's the origin of this name? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I looked into the article history and when it was first added by Dancing Hippos back in 2023, it was described as a publicity stunt. The claim needs a citation, but even if verified, I don't think the stunt name would be appropriate for a redirect anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. BDD (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Just notified of this discussion at the target talk. Jay 02:00, 29 September 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) 22:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Becky Lonergan → List of England women's international footballers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Never played for England at senior level so unclear why this redirect is in place Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Probably notable I reckon. Information is scattered between 1993–94 Arsenal L.F.C. season, 1994–95 Arsenal L.F.C. season, and 1995–96 Arsenal L.F.C. season, all of which are accessible from search results. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - she was on the list at the time that I created the redirect. That said, the reference used doesn't seem to support Lonergan actually having an England cap so perhaps removing her was correct. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. BDD (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as ineligible entry. GiantSnowman 19:15, 24 September 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) 22:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Te Iringa → Ōpōtiki#Marae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Te Iringa is the name of a locality https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/42436 as well as four different hills. The locality is presumed notable per NGEO and I doubt a marae is the primary topic (it isn't even the only marae with this name!)

Suggest return to red in absence of any suitable target. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 21 September 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) 22:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Southern Virgin Islands → United States Virgin Islands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Went many pages deep into a google search, do not see the phrase used. No sourcing as to where the line is drawn. See other RFD below for Northern VIs. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:00, 21 September 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 Skateboarding at the 2026 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Roller sports at the 2026 Asian GamesRoller sports at the 2026 Asian Games → 2026 Asian Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no roller sports mentioned at the target, so it is not clear if there are any roller sports at the 2026 Asian Games. While skateboarding has previously been categorized as a roller sport, it does not appear to be at this iteration of the Asian Games, thus this should likely be deleted. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 19:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I should have redirected it to this article: Skateboarding at the 2026 Asian Games. Yes, there is skateboarding at the 2026 Asian games. Wil540 art (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased the nomination statement poorly. What I meant to say is that, from my research, at the 2026 Asian Games, skateboarding is not classified as a roller sport. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 02:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This is an interesting point highlighting regional differences. In some countries, skateboarding is grouped into a rollerskate federation. In others, they’re independent. If skateboarding is not a roller sport, what is. Wil540 art (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Skateboarding at the 2026 Asian Games. Signahistar (talk) 10:59, 22 September 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) 22:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Northern Virgin Islands → British Virgin Islands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Northern Virgin Islands appear to refer to BVI as well as St. Thomas and St. John. This is either better as its own article per WP:REDYES, or deleted to prevent confusion. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Went many pages deep into a google search, do not see the phrase used. No sourcing as to where the line is drawn.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:59, 21 September 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 Firefox version history#Firefox 1.5. Rusalkii (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Mozilla Deer ParkMozilla Deer Park → Firefox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

really oddly specific project to have found passing mentions of and literally nothing else. the closest i found to info was one paper comparing other mozilla stuff's functions to things deer park also did (which didn't even actually describe what dp did lmao) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Firefox version history#Firefox 1.5, which explains this code name. - Eureka Lott 01:51, 22 September 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 's. Rusalkii (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

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

standard possessive form redirect. check the incoming links of "delete's" to see previous consensus if you feel like it consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't see any point in this redirect. People searching will find the right article easily enough without it as Mozilla Firefox already exists as a, rather more plausible/useful, redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 24 September 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) Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Matthew John StewartMatthew John Stewart → Clara Stewart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article provides no information on Matthew John Stewart other than the fact that he was married to Clara Stewart. Because of that, I think the redirect is unhelpful and should be deleted LincolnMagnus (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. It mentions that he was a pathologist, that he married her in 1913 and that he died in 1956. That's not much but it is better than nothing. If anybody searches for him then getting redirected here will at least give them something. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: per DanielRiga, and the article would be the logical place for more information to be added if it is expanded. Rusalkii (talk) 22:20, 28 September 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Honghe railway station → Mile–Mengzi high-speed railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requested action: deletion. For some reason, the (uncreated) article of this railway station redirects to the article of the railway it is on. This is misleading and useless. SpectralIon 01:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as mentioned at target and an {{R from subtopic}} or {{R to related topic}}, without prejudice to creation as an article if it is notable. Also add a {{Redirect}} hatnote for Honghe station, a metro station in Chengdu, and a {{Distinguish}} hatnote vice versa. Fork99 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  My main issue with Honghe being redirected is that 1. No other Chinese high-speed rail station articles (that I have discovered) are redirects to the railway they are on and 2. Many Chinese high-speed rail stations, even for small areas like Honghe, are independent articles. If there was a precedent for this, I would be fine with it. SpectralIon 20:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  This sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I've found Wulongquan East railway station and Xinzheng East railway station which redirect to Beijing–Guangzhou high-speed railway, although these are the result of a WP:BLAR (blank and redirect), whereas Honghe railway station has always been a redirect. As someone familiar with Australian railway stations, there are hundreds of similar redirects to their respective railway lines or to the town they are in, I don't know about globally though. Fork99 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - per Fork99. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 02:19, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Fork99. The WP:RCIRCULAR link at the target should be evaluated. It should probably be removed unless this is an {{R with possibilities}}, although if that is the case then maybe this should in fact be deleted per WP:RETURNTORED. But per the current situation, keeping this redirect is reasonable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Railway stations are generally notable, and this redirect actively discourages article creation. The target mentions it, but only briefly: in an image caption and the fact that the line terminates there. Better to delete the article. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The last 3 !votes make an argument that this should be deleted to encourage article creation, and so far these arguments have not been rebutted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete this isn't the only service that the station serves and the information provided at the target is not enough for the redirect to be helpful. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Traumnovelle—that is rather conclusive. Even if the station were only on the target railway, though, the other stations are three red links and one standalone article, so it wouldn't make sense to just redirect this one. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 8 October 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 Glossary of 2020s slang#N. Consensus is quite weak but in the absence of a mention at the alternative target seems to be for this target. Rusalkii (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Nostalgia baitNostalgia bait → 2026 is the new 2016  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Search engine results indicate the term is not exclusively connected with the 2026 phenomenon. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this could apply to nostalgia for any year from any time. Shocksingularity (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Glossary of 2020s slang#N I added a preliminary entry to the glossary, which could be expanded later. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Glossary of 2020s slang#N (or create an anchor and retarget to that) per Miminity. The definition of a slightly different form of the term has been given there, and this redirect could help readers find it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Nostalgia#As an advertising tool, which is more pertinent than the glossary entry. Add some mention of the term "nostalgia bait" therein. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with this if a mention gets added. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly suggested target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Nostalgia#As an advertising tool per zxcvbnm; seems more pertinent than the glossary entry, which is too short to adequately explain the context. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I second this. Moonliner72 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone willing to add a mention to Nostalgia#As an advertising tool?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Glossary of 2020s slang#N, where the term is explained, at least in the short term. I think this serves readers better than retargeting to an article purely about advertising, particularly as the term is not even mentioned there. This is not specifically about advertising, although that is a part of it. In the longer term I think that there is maybe a 50% change that we will eventually have a valid article specifically about nostalgia bait (as a phenomenon) or nostalgia baiting (as a practice) in the future. If we let the glossary entry expand as required then it will become clear if and when that should happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Glossary of 2020s slang#N; no mention in the other proposed target, and even if there was, I think I'd still probably prefer the glossary. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 October 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Altynbekova Sabina → Kazakhstan women's national volleyball team#Junior  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sabina Altynbekova → 2018 VTV9 – Binh Dien International Women's Volleyball Cup#Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the first target, nor should it be. Sum total of the text at the second target is an unsourced "Miss Volleyball" and a readymade salt-evading redlink. Any suggestion - let alone a completely unreasoned one, as at the previous rfd - that the latter is in any manner appropriate should be read in the context of the very contentious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabina Altynbekova. Trivial passing mentions in three other articles. None of the five are in the least suitable as a redirect target from this title. Delete to let search take over. —Cryptic 21:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - Redirect both to 2018 VTV9 – Binh Dien International Women's Volleyball Cup#Awards, as the listing is now sourced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
  • To one source that doesn't mention the award at all, and another that has less than a sentence about it. Which is beside the point, since you still haven't given any reason why this target is better than any of the other trivial mentions - the search prompted by a redlink would show them all. —Cryptic 00:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Sabina's win is SOURCED. The redirect was discussed very recently, and was ruled upon as retarget, so this instead of a deletion review, is kind of an abuse of process. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    (At least) one of the other trivial factlets is also sourced, and all three are less demeaning, and no more or less appropriate as a target. Deletion review would never in a thousand years endorse the previous rfd, between your entirely unmotivated bare vote - and you have still given no reason to redirect to this target - and the improper non-admin closure, but if you insist we can take it there and leave this dismissive redirect in limbo for another month or so after it inevitably sends it back here. —Cryptic 15:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

    I am OK with deletion review. The actual retarget itself was performed by an administrator, which demonstrated that two people did not disagree with the retarget. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jay 21:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

  Process comment: This nomination is not an abuse of process. Per WP:REOPEN, An uninvolved administrator, acting in their individual capacity, and giving their reasoning, may reopen a discussion closed by a non-administrator. What nom failed to do was: The administrator should notify the original closer of the re-opening. I agree that if taken to DRV, it would have come back here for a fresh or re-opened nomination anyway. The RfD was closed on Sep 4th. The page was protected, but the closer didn't reverse the close, and I don't know if the closer approached any admin. Thryduulf enforced the retarget more than a week later, on 12th, and I don't know if this was a voluntary admin action, or also meant support for the close. I have listed the previous RfD. Jay 21:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

  My action was purely procedural - the RfD was closed as retarget and had apparently not been challenged but the redirect had not been retargetted. I believe someone asked me to complete it, but I can't remember who or where. Regarding the process of this RfD, an administrator invoking REOPEN should notify the closer explaining, politely, why they are reopening the discussion and reopen the old discussion. As Cryptic did none of that, it is clear that they were not invoking REPOEN but starting a new nomination. I have no view regarding what should happen with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

  That's correct. I couldn't reopen as an uninvolved admin because I'm not - it was me that protected the redirect eleven years ago. That I had, and still have, no memory of doing so, or of the afd or this page at all, until I was pinged at RFPP is beside the point; I'd still have the appearance of involvement, and that's enough.

  Your notification was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive383#Sabina Altynbekova btw. —Cryptic 07:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the first, an unnecessary sortname lacking a comma. Weak keep the second. I've read the previous discussions, but nothing suggests to me that the current target is inappropriate. Redirecting someone to a single event like this can be tricky, since you get an WP:XY problem if they show up in a second event, but 8 years later, this seems fine. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
  • In 2014, when this person was 17, we deleted an article based primarily on her physical appearance. (Take a moment to read that version, if you haven't yet. It's short.) Now she's about as financially successful as it's possible for a professional women's volleyball player to get, if the most recent attempt at a draft is to be believed, and while we still don't have an article, that's ok - "as possible to get" isn't very, compared to players of sports more mainstream in the west. But we newly point her name on Wikipedia to an award she got, when she was 21, based primarily on her physical appearance. That's why this is objectionable. —Cryptic 16:18, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per my rationale in the first RfD, which hasn't changed, and per nom. If someone wants content on this person, search is better until/unless we have an article or section of an article with more substantive content. Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 11 October 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. The original attempted nomination never provided a reason for deletion, and it doesn't seem to clearly fall under any CSD criteria. Keeping as other editors seemed to find the redirect plausible. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Sabarmati Junction (SBT) railway stationSabarmati Junction (SBT) railway station → Sabarmati Junction railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a procedural nomination of behalf of ROLEXMEENA who attempted to RfD this in July but did not edit the daily RfD log. ROLEXMEENA created this as a self-reverted {{R from move}}, see Special:Diff/1363953523. Note that they're blocked for sockpuppetry, but this account is the sockmaster so WP:G5 doesn't apply. Maybe WP:G7, but it's unclear what they wanted. I know G7 isn't usually applied to page moves if the mover wasn't the only contributor to all pages, but this was a self-reverted move over redirect that lasted 18 minutes.

"SBT" is mentioned in the article for what it's worth, so seems plausible. So I don't think WP:G6 applies nor is this recently created for WP:R3. Fork99 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as plausible and harmless per nom. SBT is mentioned in and without brackets for the station at the target. Jay 15:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:21, 21 September 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) 22:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules. → X (social network)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely to be useful for readers to search A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete - not mentioned at target, not a likely search even when its official name was Twitter. PS the creator of this redirect got blocked in 2025, so user Talk page message is unlikely to do much. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

They're only blocked from creating pages, but they haven't edited since April 2025. Fork99 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The creator made lots of unhelpful redirects that don't make much sense. Almost certainly nobody is ever going to search Wikipedia for that phrase and, if they ever do, they won't find this redirect helpful to them. It's not actively harmful but let's get rid of it for tidiness. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• According to X itself, this is still the message given for deleted postings. (I can't check directly, since it doesn't like my primary browser, and with my alternate wants me to create account and sign in before viewing anything; I refuse.) I'd think anyone who types this into our searchbox is probably looking for our article on Censorship by X. —Cryptic 23:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  That just looks like a help page that hasn't been updated since 2017. Although, you raise an interesting point about retargeting, even if "censorship" is a heavy term for a lot of tweets that get removed (e.g. spam and scams). Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow more time to discuss the retarget suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I doubt someone would search this and even if they did I doubt they'd include a full stop at the end. That's not how Wikipedia works, nor a common way to search for things. People don't even consistently use full stops on social media when talking to other humans, why would they do it for a search bar?
  I'm also not persuaded by the Censorship by Twitter suggestion. As far as I know, Twitter was mostly criticised for alledgedly censoring by shadowbanning or account suspensions rather than by deleting posts. Those are both topics mentioned at Censorship by X. Deleting individual posts in a censorious way isn't really mentioned at all. In fact the only time the article mentions deleting tweets is in a section about Russian pressure to do so, with Twitter's initial response instead being to selectively block accounts, only eventually removing content after Roskomnadzor kept up the pressure. Even if a reader was looking for this message in relation to censorship, contrary to Twitter's reputation (or at least my memory of it), the article offers nothing helpful. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:12, 22 September 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 2-valued morphism → Ultrafilter#Ultrafilter on a Boolean algebra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably delete. The target is reasonable for 2-valued morphisms specifically in the category of Boolean algebras. I don't see any relevance to 2-valued morphisms generally, nor any reason to believe that as a search term or a link target it should be taken as understood that the category is Boolean algebras. It's true that Google searches currently give this meaning but I expect that's an artifact of the Wikipedia structure.
Disclosure: This redirect was a retarget in lieu of a PROD, so I'm not sure whether RFD or AFD is the better venue. Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• As I wrote on the PROD message, this Google scholar query doesn't indicate any substantial use of “2-valued morphism” in the mathematical literature. I agree that it's fine to delete it. The only reason I could see for keeping it is keeping hyperlinks to Wikipedia working, as the page was quite old, but it was also very bad. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm changing my mind from mildly undecided to delete. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• I just redirected because Jean Abou Samra suggested it in the PROD rationale; no opinion on whether it's an appropriate redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PRODed, ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm changing my mind from mildly undecided to delete. (Sorry for the duplicate comment, forgot that new comments should be added below this one.) Jean Abou Samra (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Miminity Sorry, I don't understand, what do you mean by "PRODed, ineligible for soft deletion"? Jean Abou Samra (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  This nomination lacks enough participants to establish consensus but there is no one opposing the deletion and it will be treated as an expired PROD thus will be deleted under WP:SOFTDELETE but this was PRODed before thus not eligible for soft deletion. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  What a bore. This redirect really should be deleted, but no one cares very much, including me. Still I feel some sort of responsibility to follow the process through. What happens if no one comments again? --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• This was not a declined PROD. It was simply redirected in lieu of deletion, like an AfD closing as redirect. RfD is perfectly able to delete the redirect left behind in either case. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, it is still technically a declined proposed deletion and it just WP:BLARed Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the person who did that doesn't seem to feel strongly about keeping it (see Extraordinary Writ's comment above). --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or is AfD the better venue?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 14:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose procedurally it might be correct to un-BLAR it, then send it to AfD, given that there used to be content there. But this feels a bit silly. No one has said they actively want to keep it, not even the person who removed the PROD. I'll do the AfD if I must, but I think it would make more sense to just delete it as unopposed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 22 September 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Boobies (breasts)Boobies (breasts) → Breast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedural nomination on behalf of @Mechanikin whose attempt did not tag the redirect and placed a malformed section at the bottom of the daily log page. Their original nomination is as follows: Fork99 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Implausible search term, and not more useful than "Breast" as piped link or displayed text. Mechanikin (talk page) 12:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a plausible search term. I can type in "boobies" and click "Boobies (breasts)" and get to the right article. If it were deleted, I have to go to booby and then, using the hatnote, booby (disambiguation). And it's a 13-year-old redirect.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 06:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning keep as harmless, given that Boobies in fact points to a kind of bird. BD2412 T 16:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong delete in the spirit of WP:X1. Absolutely beyond implausible. Someone would have to want to search for "boobies", but for fear that they'd sent to the article about the bird (which already has a hatnote to the dab page), they'd have to manually add in the disambiguator for the proper name. At which point, why wouldn't they have just searched for that in the first place? I mean, come on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. This is not a Neelix redirect so X1 is irrelevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  It might as well be. I think I've pretty well demonstrated how utterly useless this is, while "harmless" isn't really a valid reason to keep. You need to demonstrate some plausible utility too, and no reasonable person can argue that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – This sounds like a call for an RFC to remove any and all parenthetical disambiguators. Until such a time, this is as valid a search term as any other. When I type in "boobies", three article entries appear: the bird, this topic, and some bracelets. You do not need to type in a disambiguator.. wiki gives it to you.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Some people find this useful and it's harmless. I don't see any benefit to deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Lean keep. I'm sympathetic to Deacon Vorbis's point, but the all-time traffic since 2015 is >3,600 which shows that counter-intuitively it has seen some use. I suspect this traffic is partly explainable by it being linked somewhere as a a piped link or on a disambiguation page somewhere since the traffic noticeably falls off after January, 2023, when I assume the link(s) was(/were) removed. Even then, the traffic since 2023 is within the margin of error for what I would expect from an implausible redirect since 2015 not 2023, so I'm not convinced the traffic was driven entirely by old internal links that no longer exist. I'm inclined to agree with Chess enjoyer. People have used it before, maybe they'll use it again; what's the benefit to deleting? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:44, 22 September 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) 22:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Playstation 2 Offical Magazine - UK → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Playstation 2 Official Magazine - UK  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless redirect to an obscure subpage in Wikipedia namespace. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I'll remove the broken section link, at least. It doesn't sound like there's opposition to retargeting to Topographic map, but I'll leave that to the experts. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Physical mapPhysical map → Map#Map types and projections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous term. I thought of a paper map, incoming links are split between the genomics meaning and the cartographical meaning (a map of the physical territory rather than political borders). Delete or disambig? There's a dab page in the history. See also Political map, which I am not bundling but which is similarly fuzzy. Rusalkii (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget - I'm pretty familiar with map terminology, because I just re-wrote the map article (GA, now going thru FAC). The term "physical map" is very rarely used, so it certainly does not deserve an article. Many important sources do not mention it at all:

• The Glossary of the Mapping Sciences published by American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing - has no mention of "physical map"
• The ESRI GIS dictionary - has no mention of "physical map"

So what does (did) the term "physical map" designate? The History of Cartography (vol 6 "20th century") does mention it twice on page 107, where it has "...a gradual shift of emphasis from the general political and physical maps to topical maps including more demographic and environmental themes ...". See also p 51. It is clear from the usage in this source that a physical map focuses on topography and the physical surface of the earth, rather than man-made features, particularly political boundaries. Google, FWIW, agrees with that assessment. The modern term for a map that focuses on the physical features is topographic map.

Therefore, the best thing to do is to redirect physical map to topographic map. Noleander (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• From 2003–2012 this was a dab page (link). J947 ‡ ^edits 04:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Not sure. Noleander's analysis does a good job of analysing solid sources, but when we're talking redirects, we also have to support casual usage that can't be documented, and I suspect that in that setting, "physical map" is used in contrast to electronic mapping, comparable to "snail mail" versus e-mail. (If anyone would study such terminology, it would likely be folklorists and linguists, not cartographers.) Most people will be aware of the existence of topographic maps, but most people will probably not expect this redirect to refer to them. I say "not sure" only because I don't know where we'd cover this sense; Electronic map redirects to Map. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 11:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• The redirect's target section doesn't exist, but there is #Types, which is not a good target. I agree with the 2012 removal of the dab page. I'm good with retargeting to Topographic map with a nicely written hatnote to Map § Classified by medium and the genetic physical map. Do the same for Physical Map. Jay 19:08, 4 October 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. I have attributed the merged content via dummy edit. Rusalkii (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Gentlemen of Railway Board → List of The Railway Series and Thomas & Friends characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No information about these characters at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. Delete as unhelpful, and also because of grammar (there should be a "the" before Railway Board).

This was an unsourced 5 sentence stub that lasted from 2005 to 2006 before being merged to its then target. However the section was removed as part of a mass purge by an IP two years later. Jay 05:35, 21 September 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 and Medieval repair theory created. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Medieval repair → Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#Medieval repair argument  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely specific example of "medieval repair" does not seem like an appropriate target. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• delete. closest plausible target is probably Medieval technology but there are no good targets for this phrase there --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment As the creator of this redirect, I'm not 100% sure why I made it, over Medieval repair theory, the much more common name in the scholarship in my experience WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 12:29, 22 September 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Cities' alternative names → List of names of European cities in different languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just because a city is not European doesn't mean that it can't have an alternative name. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Hm, Category:Alternative place names is the closest to what this term would be looking for, but that cat has no corresponding concept article. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete – I can't imagine what someone would be looking for to type "Cities' alternative names" into the search bar. If anything it sounds like an article about cities' nicknames. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Justin Kunimune: Wikipedia has coverage of City nicknames (ie. aliases/alternative names of cities). Why not retarget to Lists of city nicknames (redirect to Lists of nicknames § City nicknames)? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 23:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: agree with nom - this is vague and don't see any alternate target. Asteramellus (talk) 22:03, 23 September 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. Move requests belong at WP:RM. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weenie → Hot dog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• WeeniesWeenies → Hot dog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Move Weenie (disambiguation) to the base title; no primary topic. "Weenie" is just as likely to refer to a Vienna sausage. 162 etc. (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Agreed, but wouldn't WP:RM be the usual venue for this sort of discussion? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Wrong venue: If you want this redirect deleted so you can move the disambiguation page or perform a swap, then you're in the wrong place. Please open a requested move. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  More specifically, follow the instructions for a potentially controversial single page move as it's not implausible that editors may dispute that there's no primary topic. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I bundled WeeniesWeenies as well. If this does end up resulting in anything other than a WP:WV, it seems better to have these two intrinsically linked redirects discussed together. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:56, 23 September 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 close, retargeted by author to Chinese Revolution. (non-admin closure) ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 23:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• History of Chinese RevolutionHistory of Chinese Revolution → Kita Ikki  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently redirects to the author of a book titled An Informal History of the Chinese Revolution, but could be ambiguous as someone could think it's a redirect to a Chinese history-related article. ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 03:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Chinese Revolution (disambiguation). Signahistar (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, that's the page I was looking for. Couldn't find it when doing a quick search before nominating. ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 14:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Chinese Revolution (disambiguation) per @Signahistar LincolnMagnus (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Retargeted under WP:G7 as author to Chinese Revolution (disambiguation). Rcfische2 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Jonathan Wagoner → 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 26  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Ballotpedia states that he did not make it onto the ballot and received no votes. मल्ल (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target and not on the ballot. Signahistar (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely Delete. When I had created this redirect, he was considered a candidate for the office and listed on Wikipedia here. Since he didn't qualify and is not even mentioned now, there is no argument. PickleG13 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Malder → Zoids#Overview  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Zoid is not mentioned in the target, or anywhere else onwiki. We have Joannes Malder and Van Malder, both redirects to people whose articles spell the surname differently (Malderus and van Maldere, respectively). There is also a smattering of hits for several Van Malders, none of which seem to have more than trivial mentions in the relevant articles. My primary topic by Google hits is the Zoid, followed by assorted miscellany. There is also the unrelated wikt:malder. I don't have a preference between deletion and disambiguation, or retargetting if someone can determine which not-actually-Malder is the primary topic.

Note that there's history which was merged to List of Zoids, see Unmentioned Zoids characters for context. Rusalkii (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 01:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that the two name redirects are different from the actual articles, and while they may serve as redirects, are not link candidates in a disambig page. Delete in the absence of a suitable target. Jay 02:12, 29 September 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. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Jim Shoemaker → 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Political candidate in multiple elections, including 2024_California_State_Senate_election#District_5, 2026_California_State_Assembly_election#District_9, and 2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California_(districts_1–26)#District_9, none of which are a primary topic. Readers would be better off with the search results. मल्ल (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense to me, User:मल्ल. I'll support Deletion for the redirect. Some of these redirects are especially useful when the election is ongoing, but they stop being so important when it's over. PickleG13 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 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 Just Wonderful Space Telescope (JWST) and refine the rest to James Webb Space Telescope#Naming concerns. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Sally Ride Space TelescopeSally Ride Space Telescope → James Webb Space Telescope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Harriet Tubman Space TelescopeHarriet Tubman Space Telescope → James Webb Space Telescope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Just Wonderful Space Telescope (JWST) → James Webb Space Telescope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Just Wonderful Space TelescopeJust Wonderful Space Telescope → James Webb Space Telescope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of these at the target, delete –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Refine all all except the one with "(JWST)" appended, which should be deleted to James Webb Space Telescope § Naming concerns, and preferably expand that section to mention these names. The naming of the telescope was a hot topic due to accusations that Webb was complicit in the Lavender Scare; Sally Ride and Harriet Tubman were put forward as alternatives after whom the telescope could be named, and Just Wonderful Space Telescope was subsequently invented as a backronym by those who objected to the naming. A little more detail can be found at James E. Webb § Controversy about telescope name, but the alternative names are not mentioned there either, and in any case the telescope's article would seem to be a more appropriate target than Webb. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  But they're still not mentioned, so refining there is still a problem. I'm skeptical that they should be, either...it just feels like excessive minutiae that isn't all that vital to get the main point across. In fact, some (all?) of those were mentioned around the time of redirect creation, but subsequently removed, and I think for good reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have expanded the section slightly to include those names and a bit more context. I think there was wide enough reporting in reliable sources of the controversy to warrant a couple more sentences. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Refine after the expansion by Ahecht, except delete Just Wonderful Space Telescope (JWST) as an implausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, deleting the one with "(JWST)" appended makes sense. I've amended my !vote accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 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 IFY. There was a consensus to change the target. A requested move discussion can take place on Talk:IFY. Epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• IfyIfy → Ify Alyssa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ify Alyssa is not the only person whose given name is Ify. The disambiguation page IFY also mentions that ify is ISO 639-3 code for Kalanguya language, but the disambiguation page doesn't mention other people with the same given name, some of whom use "Ify" with quotation marks. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to IFY and add people with the given name there. It needs a bit of beefing up, so there's no cause for two separate dab pages. Maybe IFY should be moved to Ify instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to IFY per J947 --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Move IFY to Ify and add lowercase name senses. BD2412 T 16:08, 21 September 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).