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. ✗ plicit 23:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Template:8239 → Template:Narrow no-break space  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

{{ nnbsp}} should be used in wikitext instead. The number is fairly meaningless to editors, even those who might guess it refers to an HTML entity. (Especially since it's unclear whether it's in hex or decimal.) We'd like to make the wikitext accessible to less technical editors. -- Beland ( talk) 23:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I've bypassed the redirect in the only place it was used ( Bantayan Island#cite note-42). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. --- CX Zoom(^he/_him) ( ^{let's talk}| _contribs) 08:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete as pointless and confusing. Aside from {{ nnbsp}}, editors can already do   or   if they really want to reference the Unicode code point. Theknightwho ( talk) 12:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Ground of locality → The Local Church (affiliation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of this concept at the target. Furthermore, the expression is quite vague. I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 21:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Google search results for this exact phrase show that Christianity is the clear primary topic, and I think a specific aspect of that - certainly the results appear to be all related to a common theme so I'm not certain this is a vague term in actual usage. Whether the term is unique (or even related) to the current target though is going to require someone who understands the topic more than I do. I'll drop a note for the Christianity wikipproject. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep actually gbooks & google suggest that only this bunch use the term, so leave. Ideally add on what it means. Johnbod ( talk) 04:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Johnbod: Even if this group uses this expression, since the expression is not discussed, explained or even mentioned in the article, then the redirect should be deleted. Otherwise, feel free to explain what this expression means in the article - while indicating your RSs supporting the information - if you feel this information is WP:DUE. Veverve ( talk) 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Revert to the article in the page history without prejudice. It wasn't a very good article, but it's not really been discussed (the talk page discussion was one editor disagreeing with the article author with no other input) and there might be something there suitable for merging into Watchman Nee or The Local Church (affiliation). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Watchman Nee per the first revision of the redirect page. Jay (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, agreeing with the nominator that the expression is quite vague and there is no where that defines the term. Perhaps it can be blurbed into Watchman Nee, but I'm not seeing a good place to do so? The former article was essentially an excerpt from The Normal Christian Church Life, and would not be appropriate to restore. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Tavix -- Thesmp ( talk) 09:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete In a vacuum, I don't have a problem with pointing to either the current article or proposed alternative, but I really want some kind of explanation for a term like this that's so vague on its own. I have a sense that if the exact phrase were important enough for this topic, we'd already use it. -- BDD ( talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete as no article discusses this exact concept. The article that existed briefly at this title in 2004 consisted of a two-sentence definition followed by a very long quote, so I agree it will not be appropriate to restore it. – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Paul (singer) → Paul Stookey  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine One could imagine someone searching for Paul McCartney, sometimes referred to mononymously as "Paul" among Beatles fandom. What about other Paul's with given name or surname? It's not too unreasonable to expect a reader being able to search Peter, Paul and Mary for this "Paul". — Bagumba ( talk) 13:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete or DABify per nom. Veverve ( talk) 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 17#Taylor (singer). Other cases can be made for Peter (singer) and Mary (singer). -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is a likely search term as Tavix showed with Peter and Mary as the trio are a well-known folk group. I doubt that people would look for Paul McCartney by simply searching for Paul (singer) as he was also the band's bass guitar player. Nom does make a good case that they are more likely to search for Peter, Paul and Mary, but still this is the most likely target. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• If someone's looking to answer the question of "Who was the "Paul" in Peter, Paul and Mary?", this is a reasonable search term. Keep unless someone can provide evidence that there are other singers known mononymously as Paul, in which case setindexify (just for singers known by the mononym Paul, not for all singers named Paul). -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 02:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Who was the "Paul" in Peter, Paul and Mary?" See Peter, Paul and Mary. An answer looking for a problem.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The most basic principle behind redirects is that not all readers will take the same approach to find a given piece of information. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 03:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Tamzin and Walter Görlitz. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 22:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Paul McCartney is not like Paul Stookey, in that the former is a household name, and therefore less likely to be forgotten. Secondly, the former's name was never used as a band name (there was only The Beatles and Wings/ Paul McCartney and Wings, never just "Paul") as is the case with Stookey. To drive home the point, there is an album named only McCartney. While there is an album Paul Is Live, it was made as a parody to the urban legend "Paul is dead", not as a way to rebrand himself ab initio as Paul. Just take a look at the article, where you will find a photo of a period magazine putting it as "Paul McCartney Dead". Havradim leaf a message 22:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Revert to the earlier target of Peter, Paul and Mary. While the current target is technically correct, since we are talking about readers searching and trying to find who the Paul of Peter, Paul and Mary is, the reader is more likely to be helped by a search listing of Peter, Paul and Mary, than the name Paul Stookey. Jay (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Thesmp ( talk) 09:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Far side of the Moon. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Dark side of the moon → The Dark Side of the Moon  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Dark side of the Moon → The Dark Side of the Moon  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect to Far side of the Moon. The word "side" is lowercase here, with "Moon" using a capital letter, so the capitalization only makes sense to be about the dark side of the actual Moon rather than the Pink Floyd album. Note that "Moon" is properly capitalized either way per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES (about that, see also List of missions to the Moon, Far side of the Moon, Orbit of the Moon, Colonization of the Moon, Exploration of the Moon). Also note that the article at Far side of the Moon says the subject is "sometimes called the 'dark side of the Moon'" (with boldface assuming it is the redirect's target per MOS:BOLDFACE). In the edit history, User:Explicit said to "take it to WP:RFD", so that's what I'm doing. See also the early-2019 RM discussion at Talk:Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 January 2019. Perhaps we should talk about the redirect at Dark side of the moon as well, but I think the case is stronger when "Moon" is capitalized and "side" is lowercased. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 03:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Far side of the Moon. The redirect does not even allude to the Pink Floyd album, and this album is less primary topic for the expression "dark side of the Moon" than the actual dark side of the Moon. Veverve ( talk) 06:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC). Alternatively, retarget to Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation). Veverve ( talk) 21:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep absent any indication that the title is no longer primary for the album. The celestial body capitalization is not an indicator that the reader is not searching for the album; they could simply be capitalizing a proper noun. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I think that if the reader is picky and knowledgeable enough to use a capital M for Moon, based on it being a proper name, they would also be picky and knowledgeable enough to know that "side" would use a capital letter in a typically formatted album title. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep The title of the album is the primary topic here, the suggestion that people may be trying to look for the celestial body while typing this in is wildly implausible. ValarianB ( talk) 12:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Dark side of the moon is exactly what I might have typed in the first instance to get information about that part of the Moon's surface, with Far side of the moon being an afterthought. Havradim leaf a message 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation) per the RM verdict. The RM closer changed the target to The Dark Side of the Moon immediately after the move, with summary redir to primary topic per move discussion, but the primary topic discussion was with respect to the uppercases title. Jay (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  There is nothing in the RM discussion or verdict that warrants this "per" conclusion. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The result of a Move is a redirect from the source to the destination. That is until you bring logic into it. Jay (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I would not object to retargeting to the disambiguation page, although I still prefer my proposal to retarget to Far side of the Moon. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation). I don't go with all the upper/lower case stuff. I suspect when people are using a mobile they just type in lower case in hopes. And I'm even less persuaded by there being an actual dark side of the Moon though I accept people use the expression. I really believe the Pink Floyd album is much the most likely but arriving at the disambiguation page is no big disadvantage. Finally, Dark side of the moon should reach the same target as this redirect (wherever that is). Thincat ( talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Dark side of the moon which is also being discussed but was not nominated per se.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep both as {{ R from incorrect capitalization}}. I see no reason why the album should not continue to be the primary topic for incorrect capitalization as well; those seeking Far side of the moon can easily reach it via a hatnote. Nothing is gained from retargeting to the dab page and making those seeking the album navigate through another page. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that nothing would be gained by not having people who are looking for information about the Moon and are correctly formatting the request directed to an article about an album that does not use that typographical formatting. Hatnotes are not as obvious to readers as disambiguation pages. It has been common to refer to the far side of the Moon as the dark side of the Moon, and it takes a bit of thinking about orbital phenomena to realize that its use of "dark" is not celestially accurate. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Highlighting for clarification: As noted in the relisting comment, I did not actually propose changing the target of the all-lowercase redirect. I only said "perhaps we should talk about" that, not that we should do it. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget both to Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation). This is a case where systemic WP:BIAS might be coming into play — I for one had not known about any of the cultural references, including Pink Floyd (I knew of The Wall). The redirects in this nomination could easily refer to both the album and the celestial body, so they are instances that require disambiguation. It does not make sense to say that an album that references a celestial phenomenon is more notable than the celestial body itself, any more than saying that Mercury (automobile) is more notable than the planet or the element. Havradim leaf a message 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This is a minor matter, and has already been relisted twice. At this point I suggest we just retarget to both to Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation) and move on. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 20:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  Support that. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment/other. Dark Side of the Moon (the Pink Floyd album) is fairly certainly the primary target for searches. "Far side of the Moon" is very likely predominantly the second target. But, there are many other possible lesser targets. A google search brings up both of the two main articles. Distinctions based on capitalisation are rarely going to be of service to our readers. Many are going to search without distinction for caps (lazy fingers? because caps usually don't matter). Consider how the WP search box works. It gives a "smart" results drop-down of 10 possibilities. These smart results are case insensitive. If the album were renamed "Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd album)" or similar, this would clearly distinguish it from all of the other possible uses. "Dark Side of the Moon (album)" is already a redirect for the Floyd album and is probably just as good. "Dark side of the Moon (Earth)" or similar is probably a good redirect to directly target the far side of the Moon from the search bar and the smart results options. Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation) would then be the target for everything else. There should be no redirects for "dark side of the moon" or different capitalisations of same. This is because they only take up space in the smart results drop-down but suggest there might be a different targets when there isn't. If anything (we really need it) "Dark side of the moon" should target the disambiguation page. To that extent, this is qualified support for the proposal. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  I understand by "proposal", Cinderella is referring to the updated suggestion of the nominator, and not the original nomination. Jay (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• retarget to Far side of the Moon I found this RFD by searching for "dark side of the moon" when I was looking for information about the lunar orbit which eventually turned out to be in Far side of the Moon with further detail in Tidal locking. The first thing I think of for "Dark Side of the Moon" (without "The" at the beginning) is Clare Valley shiraz. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 13:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Far side of the Moon. This is the only topic at Dark Side of the Moon (disambiguation) that can be capitalized this way and we should prioritize correct capitalization over error. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Far side of the Moon per Tavix. This is one of the only times I can recall an RfD for a redirect that has personally misled me. I was taught growing up that the far side of the Moon was called the dark side of the Moon, and distinctly recall looking it up on Wikipedia once and being surprised to be taken to the article on the album named after it. No one here seems to dispute that "Dark side of the Moon" and "Dark side of the moon", capitalized thusly, refer primarily to the general concept. I am somewhat sympathetic to Thincat's argument that WP:DIFFCAPS may need to be updated for the 2020s (or even 2010s), and a recent RM I started for Cold War (term) saw no consensus to apply DIFFCAPS, so clearly there's ongoing pushback to applying DIFFCAPS across the board. But if someone has chosen to capitalize the "M" here but not the "s" and has omitted the leading "The", I think some level of intentionality can be assumed. For the all-lowercase variant, I feel a bit less strongly, but still come down for retarget simply because "dark side of the moon" more naturally refers to the thing called the "dark side of the moon" than the album titled The Dark Side of the Moon. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 03:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Far side of the Moon. -- Heanor ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Far side of the Moon. -- Thesmp ( talk) 09:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Jay (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Ježibaba → Baba Yaga  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There no longer needs to be a redirect, as the article can be usefully linked to the Czech Wikipedia. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep - cross-language-project redirects are more likely to confuse readers than help them and should generally not be created. Additionally, the Czech term is explicitly mentioned and discussed at the current target, so the current topic seems suitable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Rosguill and WP:SOFTREDIRECT (Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers.). 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Bar president → Bob Barr 2008 presidential campaign  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Barr president → Bob Barr 2008 presidential campaign  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

As a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#President bar, these redirects also imply a "President Barr". -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the same reason as the previous discussion.-- 65.93.195.118 ( talk) 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• For bar president, we do have List of presidents of the American Bar Association, but that might be overly US-centric. - Eureka Lott 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: too vague. Veverve ( talk) 06:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak retarget the former to Bar association or disambiguate among bar associations that have presidents ( American Bar Association, Canadian Bar Association, Bar Association of Sri Lanka, maybe others), else delete. Delete the latter per the last RfD. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 06:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget Bar president to List of presidents of the American Bar Association as a plausible search term for that content, Delete Barr president per the above. Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget Bar president to List of presidents of the American Bar Association and delete Barr president. As a side note, I don't know if President bar should be recreated to retarget List of presidents of the American Bar Association because if the difference in grammar. OcelotCreeper2 ( talk) 17:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Oppose retargeting to List of presidents of the American Bar Association as too narrow. The American Bar Association isn't the only bar association that has presidents; the International Bar Association and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka do too. Retargeting the first redirect to Bar association would be fine. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete "List of presidents of the American Bar Association" shows extreme U.S. bias -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Disambig the former, delete the latter. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete both consistent with previous discussion and because the first is too vague. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus for Barr president, but different opinions on Bar president.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete both. Of the proposed targets for bar president, bar association doesn't discuss bar presidents, List of presidents of the American Bar Association isn't a good target per WP:INUSA, and disambiguation would just give us a random partial list of bar associations since basically every bar association in the world has either a president or a chair without any deep rationale for one title vs. the other. Given all the Google Scholar hits, there might be an encyclopedic article to be written about this topic, but for now I don't see that Wikipedia has even a paragraph of content about leadership of bar associations in general. (For Barr president, I agree with the above comments and have nothing useful to add.) 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 01:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 considered as withdrawn. The problematic moves were reverted and the swap was achieved. Jay (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• 2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis → 2021-2022 Russia-Ukraine crisis  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reason 9. The redirect was made without any consensus from other editors. The reasons listed by the editor has not validated the fact that Wikipedia has been using "Russo-Ukrainian" to explain the conflict between both countries in several articles, even in the master article listing the previous crises between Russia and Ukraine. Even with the user's validated reason he has not achieved any consensus nor even attempt to ask others regarding this issue. ( PenangLion ( talk) 13:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)) reply

Keep this redirect that uses adjectival forms for Russia and Ukraine and is also a logical way to describe this crisis. There is never one and only one way to refer to an event like this, so redirects are good as they allow people to enter different names that work. There is no requirement to get consensus before making a redirect, and no requirement that redirects match the wording used in the article. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 08:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Oiyarbepsy. This is a completely plausible search term, especially given the title of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - @ PenangLion: I'm not sure I understand this nomination. As of this moment, the article is currently called 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, but I don't think that was the case when the nom was made. If the question is whether the title should include "Russia" or "Russo" (and similarly for "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian"), that should be decided by a WP:RM if there is edit-warring over this. But certainly this particular redirect (which has - instead of – for the date range) should be kept either way as both are quite plausible ways to search for this. A7V2 ( talk) 22:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ A7V2- Apologies, there is no need for a move now. The problem originated from an incompetent user who moved the entire page's name without consulting any other editors first / getting a consensus. Another editor has made fixes that reverted the change. Cheers, PenangLion ( talk) 05:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Micro TDH → Piso 21  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Luigi 21 Plus → Kevvo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Are we certain the target itself is notable? All these redirects strike me as a way to get a bunch of non-notable artists on Wikipedia in some capacity...but I'm not particularly convinced the main target is even notable. If that were deleted, then these all could be speedied. Just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Sergecross73: From a cursory view, Kevvo satisfies several criteria under WP:MUSICBIO. He has been certified by RIAA thrice already. [1]. He has charted in several charts. [2] [3] and there is some coverage here and behind a paywall here. I didn't read any of those in details, so I can't say the article will survive AfD, but it seems possible. Nevertheless, the redirects are misleading, with quite a number articles using them and assuming there is an article behind them. I am assuming good faith but there is always a possibility this was done as part of a promotional effort. -- Muhandes ( talk) 08:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Gotcha. Yeah that's a pretty solid argument for notability, so nevermind. I originally had my doubts because most of the article focuses on these trivial "diss tracks" and "beefs" with other rappers rather than any of those rather important points. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Gotay “El Autentiko” → Kevvo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Search results (which show his collaboration with multiple other musicians) are more informative than a redirect to just one of the other musicians with whom he has collaborated. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Pablo Chill-E → Kevvo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Search results (which show his collaboration with multiple musicians) are more informative than a redirect to just one of the musicians with whom he has collaborated. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 01:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Marvel Boy (singer) → Kevvo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Search results (which show his collaboration with multiple musicians) are more informative than a redirect to just one of the musicians with whom he has collaborated. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes ( talk) 12:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ✗ plicit 23:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Swordtail Breeding → Fishkeeping  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

What a surprise. Also, there's no section in the target of Swordtail, Xiphophorus, where this redirect could plausibly target; however, Green swordtail#Breeding does exist, but the aforementioned article is not the target of Swordtail. Steel1943 ( talk) 09:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've looked through a variety of swordtail-related aquarium fish pages, and there isn't really a good target, and we don't normally have redirects for the breeding of aquarium fishes. Any reader interested in the subject will just look for Swordtail and be redirected to the genus, which in turn links to all the species. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Target all to Photosensitizer. Jay (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Photosensitize → Photosensitivity  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Photosensitizing → Photosensitivity  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Photosensitization → Photosensitizer  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

These should be consistent. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• (Re)target all to Photosensitizer. These active forms of the word refer more to the chemical/physical concept rather than the broader, passive concept of photosensitivity. Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget all per Mdewman6.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, done via speedy. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe) → Characters of the DC Extended Universe#Lex Luthor  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Clearing redirect to make way for a ready-to-be published draft of this character's page. -- WuTang94 ( talk) 03:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

My bad. I meant to do a request for speedy deletion. I'd like to redact this to do a CSD.-- WuTang94 ( talk) 04:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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! 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• White genocide theory → White genocide conspiracy theory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Whitewashing racist conspiracy mongering, WP:FRINGE Dronebogus ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: which is why it was created. We don't need to keep it. Sumanuil 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Dronebogus and Sumanuil: I have changed the listing to be the "article" not the talk page. A7V2 ( talk) 01:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I can see this being a term that some people search for if they encounter it on some of the more dubious parts of the web. Having a hard redirect to White genocide conspiracy theory makes it very clear what the truth of the matter is. So in that sense, I can see it doing some good. Theknightwho ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep reasonable shortening of the name; non-neutral redirects are allowed. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - to prevent someone from creating an article on that name. The existence of the redirect shows that it is in fact a conspiracy theory.--- Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - We can't expect our readers to know that this is a conspiracy theory and not something seen as a serious position. If we assume the reader knows everything already then there's no need for an article. If there is concern about recreation as a separate article etc then it can be edit-protected. A7V2 ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closer (or relister): I left the RFD tag on Talk:White genocide theory when changing this listing (not sure if I should have done that or not) but in any case it should be removed if this is not deleted. A7V2 ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Elli. Havradim leaf a message 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Theknihtwho and AV72. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Micky Bly → General Motors  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Appears to be a former executive, no-longer (if ever) mentioned at the target. Now at Chrysler/Stellantis North America, see Chrysler#Management team and [4]. I would suggest delete as there is next to no information about this person on the Chrysler article. Note that Michael Bly is a redlink. A7V2 ( talk) 01:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete The subject currently does not achieve general notability. Havradim leaf a message 03:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.