From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2023.

Being beautiful in spirit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Being beautiful in spirit

Wild asparagus

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. plicit 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A different page, unrelated to the redirect target, exists with the name of the re-direct at Wild Asparagus. The latter page is extremely difficult to find due to the presence of the redirect. TimberToner ( talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - At the very least a hatnote should be added on Asparagus if this is kept. Note that there's already a hatnote on Wild Asparagus. I'm not certain which is the primary topic for the lowercase version of this (see WP:DIFFCAPS) so no opinion for now on keeping or retargeting. A7V2 ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS, expand hatnote at asparagus, otherwise anyone seeking Wild Asparagus has no way to navigate there. Mdewman6 ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think this is a great suggestion. I am going to expand the hatnote at asparagus now since it is a cheap edit, and it will help users find Wild Asparagus. After the hatnote is expanded, I think it is still worth discussing if the redirect is worthy of deletion or retargeting. TimberToner ( talk) 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Certainly deletion is not a reasonable outcome, the question is whether is should be kept as a subtopic of asparagus or be retargeted to Wild Asparagus as {{ R from miscapitalization}}. Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS. I think the expanded hatnote is sufficient here, as most readers searching for "wild asparagus" (lowercase) are almost certainly looking for the plant. Retargeting would probably result in a lot of surprises. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Hatnote seems to solve the current issue. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or possibly DAB, the redirect has 46 views but the band has 122 however redirects often don't get many views due to search engines not landing readers on them and the Asparagus article has 43,626 views[ [1]]. Google only returns the plant so it does seem likely the plant is primary for the lower case version. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Grip-Lock

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, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. Was formerly a redirect towards the WP:BLARed via WP:AFD article Mini-Con. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's unclear to me why it was ever a redirect to Mini-Con, there was no mention in the version deleted at AfD or the version when the redirect was created [2]. Searching only turns up the motorcycle product, for which this was briefly an "article" [3] created by Captainalen. Since there is no mention (or possibly even connection?) at the current target either restore the article or delete (as the article likely satisfies WP:G11). I may reconsider if mention were added and justified. A7V2 ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    For what it's worth to note, the redirect was an article for about 5 days before it was redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes that's a good point. Definitely first preference is to delete but I don't oppose restoring if others feel it is necessary. A7V2 ( talk) 05:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Normally I would go for Restore and then send to AfD but that "article" seems to be a Speedy Delete G11 candidate that it's just not worth the time. -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Funker

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, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Term (someone's nickname for him?) does not appear in the target article. Meanwhile, funker has other meanings, like 'one who backs out of something from cowardice', and in German (as in the band name Funker Vogt) 'signaller or radio operator', among other things, but I'm not sure any of them are encyclopedic, so I can't think of an alternative redir target. (Alternatively, I guess someone could source the nickname as in public use in reliable sources and add it to the article?)  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "I'm a funker" does seem to be used to express admiration for Terry Funk (e.g. [4]) which I assume is where this comes from. However it isn't mentioned in the target article and it wouldn't be primary usage even if it was. Hut 8.5 17:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

El Bronco (wrestler), Bronco (Dominican wrestler), Bronco (Puerto Rican wrestler)

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 💬 18:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I doubt someone would search for this wrestler by typing his ring name three times, with each instance preceding a different parenthetical qualifier.

Note that this redirect was created as part of a request at AFC/RC. The IP most likely wanted to create three separate redirects, but the link was malformed and the reviewer misunderstood the request. If some editor wants to create Bronco (Dominican wrestler) or Bronco (Puerto Rican wrestler) ( El Bronco (wrestler) already exists), they are free to do so, but I don't think that this redirect is remotely plausible.

Ping the redirect reviewer @ L293D: Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 18:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have also found this discussion on a similar redirect. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IsaacNewtonSegments

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 deleted per G8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs). -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

redirect to deleted template Artem.G ( talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G8, though I think that might not apply until the target is deleted itself. Duckmather ( talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fake image

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Template:Fake image

Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14#Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia

Wikipedia:NOT2

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 💬 07:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm concerned that any shortcut that starts with WP:NOT might be misinterpreted as a link to the famous core policy. This particular shortcut does not seem to be used presently and does not have any particularly useful feature (such as linking to a section), and I therefore gently suggest that it could probably be deleted without any (apparent) harm, and that there might be a small benefit to deleting it, since there is a chance that not having this shortcut might prevent confusion in the future about whether someone was talking about (e.g.,) the second section of WP:NOT.

(For clarity, I can only demonstrate that this is unused in current pages. I don't know whether it was used in an edit summary or a previous version of a page. I'm fully aware that being unused is not a reason for deletion, but I mention this in case anyone is concerned that deleting it might require any additional work to update pages with new links.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Beautiful language

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 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Obscure synonym - car chasm ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Kalology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Kalology

Assistant Attorney General

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 between retargeting and keeping. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget all to Attorney general. The United States federal government is hardly the only entity to have assistant attorneys general. In cleaning up incoming links to these redirects, I easily found more than a dozen specifying assistant attorneys general for other jurisdictions. BD2412 T 05:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it a try to see if a better target arises.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 edits 08:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget all to Attorney general per above -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to U.S. specifics per nominator. The other retarget suggested above is not about assistant so that would obviously be useless to the searcher/wikilinker. Softlavender ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Softlavender: By "Retarget to U.S. specifics per nominator" what did you mean? The nomination is against having the current target which is U.S.-specific. Jay 💬 14:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oops, thanks, somehow I read that wrong. I will re-vote. Softlavender ( talk) 22:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. The retarget suggested is not about assistant so that would obviously be useless to the searcher/wikilinker. Softlavender ( talk) 22:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, no evidence has been provided of notable assistant attorneys general in other jurisdictions. Strong oppose retargeting to Attorney general. "Assistant" is not even mentioned there, guaranteeing that someone looking for information on a specific office will not find it. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Sylhet region

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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This redirect targets to Sylhet Division (Bangladesh) which forms most of Sylhet but it isn't exactly an equivalent of Sylhet "region" which also includes Karimganj district in India. I propose that this be retargeted to History of Sylhet which, in my opinion, is a better target because it emphasises on the entirety of Sylhet region, unlike the division article which is focused on only a part of that region. CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { CX}) 18:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Support Mehedi Abedin 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reject - In the modern sense, the term 'Sylhet region' is used interchangeably with Sylhet Division. Although the Bangladeshi division of Sylhet does not include the three and a half thanas now part of India, it is still referred to as such but the same cannot be said in the Indian side, where they prefer using terms such as Barak Valley and associating with that as an alternative. UserNumber ( talk) 18:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Karimganj district's association with Barak Valley was only a post-partition development. For most of its history, that was not the case. I believe, as a "region" it still forms a part of Sylhet alongside the more specific Sylhet division. CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { CX}) 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguation seems like the logical conclusion of the nominator's arguments. And from a quick glance, it seems like the vast majority of the numerous incoming links are trying to link to a general article on the region, covering both sides of the border -- not to a historical region or to the present-day division of Bangladesh. Which makes sense, because until 2020 we had exactly such an article. I don't know much about the underlying issues here, but it seems to me that the optimal outcome would be to restore that page, since it covered exactly the primary topic. But disambiguation at least punts this issue back to editors at the article level to determine exactly what the target of each individual link should be (and whether perhaps we should once again have an article on the region as a whole). As an aside, although nobody is proposing deletion at the moment, for the record it should be noted that substantial content from the former Sylhet region page has been incorporated into Sylhet Division. The revision history of Sylhet region must therefore be preserved per WP:COPYWITHIN; I have applied {{ copied}} to the source article talk page. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and add hatnotes to Sylhet or Sylhet disambiguation. Add R with history tag. Remove extra entry in the disambiguation page. AngusW🐶🐶F ( barksniff) 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A Google news search shows only stuff about Sylhet Division in Bangladesh. The redirect makes sense. A.Musketeer ( talk) 00:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:JX

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17#Wikipedia:JX

Lists of Indonesian villages

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) 14:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Misleading redirects in that no such list exists, and one is unlikely to exist on Wikipedia due to there being from hundreds to thousands of villages in each province of the country. Note that the second is a {{ R with history}}, though it doesn't seem like any of the former content has remained even directly after the merge. Randi Moth Talk Contribs 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of this discussion at the target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per nomination. There was no merge per Randi. Jay 💬 07:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

White Kingdom

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/disambiguate. No consensus between keeping and disambiguating after three relists, but a consensus against the status quo. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguate And move the original article to White Kingdom (Dungeons & Dragons) per BOZ. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ) 15:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are about a dozen obscure entities with this name that are mentioned in passing here and there on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, none of them are worth creating dab entries for. Better leave navigation to the search engine (yes, it needs the quotation marks to return meaningful results here, but that's the case for every search string that's more than a single word, and I don't think that every multiple-word search phrase should automatically be entitled to a redirect or a dab page on account of this fact). – Uanfala ( talk) 12:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or delete? Also, a disambiguation draft will help in the discussion. BOZ had already moved the original edit history to White Kingdom (Dungeons & Dragons) on April 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Here's a first Draft:White Kingdom. Daranios ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A dab would have been nice if there were couple of articles with the title. The entries at the drafted dab are akin to search results, and do not provide additional value per Uanfala. Delete, but if not deleted, we should not have the status quo because of the ambiguity. Jay 💬 07:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete per Uanfala. Very sympathetic to that search results are extremely unhelpful for multi-word terms ( White people in the United Kingdom!), and the vast majority of readers don't know how to use quote marks in a search or wouldn't think to anyway, but any content on White Kingdoms is extremely limited. In my opinion, just one White Kingdom on the site meets DABMENTION: Tiit Aleksejev's The White Kingdom, which includes the definite article. And maybe the Game of the Seven Kingdoms kingdom, but I don't think people would very often search up one of seven sides in a board game at all. J947 edits 07:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, given that we now have a drafted disambiguation page and !votes made since then have swung towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2023.

Being beautiful in spirit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Being beautiful in spirit

Wild asparagus

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. plicit 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A different page, unrelated to the redirect target, exists with the name of the re-direct at Wild Asparagus. The latter page is extremely difficult to find due to the presence of the redirect. TimberToner ( talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - At the very least a hatnote should be added on Asparagus if this is kept. Note that there's already a hatnote on Wild Asparagus. I'm not certain which is the primary topic for the lowercase version of this (see WP:DIFFCAPS) so no opinion for now on keeping or retargeting. A7V2 ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS, expand hatnote at asparagus, otherwise anyone seeking Wild Asparagus has no way to navigate there. Mdewman6 ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think this is a great suggestion. I am going to expand the hatnote at asparagus now since it is a cheap edit, and it will help users find Wild Asparagus. After the hatnote is expanded, I think it is still worth discussing if the redirect is worthy of deletion or retargeting. TimberToner ( talk) 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Certainly deletion is not a reasonable outcome, the question is whether is should be kept as a subtopic of asparagus or be retargeted to Wild Asparagus as {{ R from miscapitalization}}. Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS. I think the expanded hatnote is sufficient here, as most readers searching for "wild asparagus" (lowercase) are almost certainly looking for the plant. Retargeting would probably result in a lot of surprises. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Hatnote seems to solve the current issue. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or possibly DAB, the redirect has 46 views but the band has 122 however redirects often don't get many views due to search engines not landing readers on them and the Asparagus article has 43,626 views[ [1]]. Google only returns the plant so it does seem likely the plant is primary for the lower case version. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Grip-Lock

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, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. Was formerly a redirect towards the WP:BLARed via WP:AFD article Mini-Con. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's unclear to me why it was ever a redirect to Mini-Con, there was no mention in the version deleted at AfD or the version when the redirect was created [2]. Searching only turns up the motorcycle product, for which this was briefly an "article" [3] created by Captainalen. Since there is no mention (or possibly even connection?) at the current target either restore the article or delete (as the article likely satisfies WP:G11). I may reconsider if mention were added and justified. A7V2 ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    For what it's worth to note, the redirect was an article for about 5 days before it was redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes that's a good point. Definitely first preference is to delete but I don't oppose restoring if others feel it is necessary. A7V2 ( talk) 05:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Normally I would go for Restore and then send to AfD but that "article" seems to be a Speedy Delete G11 candidate that it's just not worth the time. -- Lenticel ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Funker

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, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Term (someone's nickname for him?) does not appear in the target article. Meanwhile, funker has other meanings, like 'one who backs out of something from cowardice', and in German (as in the band name Funker Vogt) 'signaller or radio operator', among other things, but I'm not sure any of them are encyclopedic, so I can't think of an alternative redir target. (Alternatively, I guess someone could source the nickname as in public use in reliable sources and add it to the article?)  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "I'm a funker" does seem to be used to express admiration for Terry Funk (e.g. [4]) which I assume is where this comes from. However it isn't mentioned in the target article and it wouldn't be primary usage even if it was. Hut 8.5 17:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

El Bronco (wrestler), Bronco (Dominican wrestler), Bronco (Puerto Rican wrestler)

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 💬 18:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I doubt someone would search for this wrestler by typing his ring name three times, with each instance preceding a different parenthetical qualifier.

Note that this redirect was created as part of a request at AFC/RC. The IP most likely wanted to create three separate redirects, but the link was malformed and the reviewer misunderstood the request. If some editor wants to create Bronco (Dominican wrestler) or Bronco (Puerto Rican wrestler) ( El Bronco (wrestler) already exists), they are free to do so, but I don't think that this redirect is remotely plausible.

Ping the redirect reviewer @ L293D: Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 18:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have also found this discussion on a similar redirect. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IsaacNewtonSegments

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 deleted per G8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs). -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

redirect to deleted template Artem.G ( talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G8, though I think that might not apply until the target is deleted itself. Duckmather ( talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fake image

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Template:Fake image

Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14#Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia

Wikipedia:NOT2

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 💬 07:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm concerned that any shortcut that starts with WP:NOT might be misinterpreted as a link to the famous core policy. This particular shortcut does not seem to be used presently and does not have any particularly useful feature (such as linking to a section), and I therefore gently suggest that it could probably be deleted without any (apparent) harm, and that there might be a small benefit to deleting it, since there is a chance that not having this shortcut might prevent confusion in the future about whether someone was talking about (e.g.,) the second section of WP:NOT.

(For clarity, I can only demonstrate that this is unused in current pages. I don't know whether it was used in an edit summary or a previous version of a page. I'm fully aware that being unused is not a reason for deletion, but I mention this in case anyone is concerned that deleting it might require any additional work to update pages with new links.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Beautiful language

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 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Obscure synonym - car chasm ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Kalology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Kalology

Assistant Attorney General

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 between retargeting and keeping. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget all to Attorney general. The United States federal government is hardly the only entity to have assistant attorneys general. In cleaning up incoming links to these redirects, I easily found more than a dozen specifying assistant attorneys general for other jurisdictions. BD2412 T 05:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it a try to see if a better target arises.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 edits 08:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget all to Attorney general per above -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to U.S. specifics per nominator. The other retarget suggested above is not about assistant so that would obviously be useless to the searcher/wikilinker. Softlavender ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Softlavender: By "Retarget to U.S. specifics per nominator" what did you mean? The nomination is against having the current target which is U.S.-specific. Jay 💬 14:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oops, thanks, somehow I read that wrong. I will re-vote. Softlavender ( talk) 22:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. The retarget suggested is not about assistant so that would obviously be useless to the searcher/wikilinker. Softlavender ( talk) 22:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, no evidence has been provided of notable assistant attorneys general in other jurisdictions. Strong oppose retargeting to Attorney general. "Assistant" is not even mentioned there, guaranteeing that someone looking for information on a specific office will not find it. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Sylhet region

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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This redirect targets to Sylhet Division (Bangladesh) which forms most of Sylhet but it isn't exactly an equivalent of Sylhet "region" which also includes Karimganj district in India. I propose that this be retargeted to History of Sylhet which, in my opinion, is a better target because it emphasises on the entirety of Sylhet region, unlike the division article which is focused on only a part of that region. CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { CX}) 18:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Support Mehedi Abedin 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reject - In the modern sense, the term 'Sylhet region' is used interchangeably with Sylhet Division. Although the Bangladeshi division of Sylhet does not include the three and a half thanas now part of India, it is still referred to as such but the same cannot be said in the Indian side, where they prefer using terms such as Barak Valley and associating with that as an alternative. UserNumber ( talk) 18:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Karimganj district's association with Barak Valley was only a post-partition development. For most of its history, that was not the case. I believe, as a "region" it still forms a part of Sylhet alongside the more specific Sylhet division. CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { CX}) 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguation seems like the logical conclusion of the nominator's arguments. And from a quick glance, it seems like the vast majority of the numerous incoming links are trying to link to a general article on the region, covering both sides of the border -- not to a historical region or to the present-day division of Bangladesh. Which makes sense, because until 2020 we had exactly such an article. I don't know much about the underlying issues here, but it seems to me that the optimal outcome would be to restore that page, since it covered exactly the primary topic. But disambiguation at least punts this issue back to editors at the article level to determine exactly what the target of each individual link should be (and whether perhaps we should once again have an article on the region as a whole). As an aside, although nobody is proposing deletion at the moment, for the record it should be noted that substantial content from the former Sylhet region page has been incorporated into Sylhet Division. The revision history of Sylhet region must therefore be preserved per WP:COPYWITHIN; I have applied {{ copied}} to the source article talk page. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and add hatnotes to Sylhet or Sylhet disambiguation. Add R with history tag. Remove extra entry in the disambiguation page. AngusW🐶🐶F ( barksniff) 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A Google news search shows only stuff about Sylhet Division in Bangladesh. The redirect makes sense. A.Musketeer ( talk) 00:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:JX

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17#Wikipedia:JX

Lists of Indonesian villages

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) 14:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Misleading redirects in that no such list exists, and one is unlikely to exist on Wikipedia due to there being from hundreds to thousands of villages in each province of the country. Note that the second is a {{ R with history}}, though it doesn't seem like any of the former content has remained even directly after the merge. Randi Moth Talk Contribs 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of this discussion at the target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per nomination. There was no merge per Randi. Jay 💬 07:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

White Kingdom

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/disambiguate. No consensus between keeping and disambiguating after three relists, but a consensus against the status quo. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguate And move the original article to White Kingdom (Dungeons & Dragons) per BOZ. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ) 15:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are about a dozen obscure entities with this name that are mentioned in passing here and there on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, none of them are worth creating dab entries for. Better leave navigation to the search engine (yes, it needs the quotation marks to return meaningful results here, but that's the case for every search string that's more than a single word, and I don't think that every multiple-word search phrase should automatically be entitled to a redirect or a dab page on account of this fact). – Uanfala ( talk) 12:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or delete? Also, a disambiguation draft will help in the discussion. BOZ had already moved the original edit history to White Kingdom (Dungeons & Dragons) on April 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Here's a first Draft:White Kingdom. Daranios ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A dab would have been nice if there were couple of articles with the title. The entries at the drafted dab are akin to search results, and do not provide additional value per Uanfala. Delete, but if not deleted, we should not have the status quo because of the ambiguity. Jay 💬 07:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete per Uanfala. Very sympathetic to that search results are extremely unhelpful for multi-word terms ( White people in the United Kingdom!), and the vast majority of readers don't know how to use quote marks in a search or wouldn't think to anyway, but any content on White Kingdoms is extremely limited. In my opinion, just one White Kingdom on the site meets DABMENTION: Tiit Aleksejev's The White Kingdom, which includes the definite article. And maybe the Game of the Seven Kingdoms kingdom, but I don't think people would very often search up one of seven sides in a board game at all. J947 edits 07:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, given that we now have a drafted disambiguation page and !votes made since then have swung towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook