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 Hayes, Hillingdon#Buses. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Charville Lane Estate → Hillingdon  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. It is briefly mentioned in Hayes, Hillingdon, but only as a bus stop name. Rusalkii ( talk) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Hayes, Hillingdon#Buses which has said mention as a bus stop. As this is all the information on this location we have, we should give it to the user when they search for it. Fieari ( talk) 07:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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. ✗ plicit 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• MOS:TITLETYPOCON → Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228#Silently correct an error if it's in a title?  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I'm wondering if this discussion is significant enought to have its own redirect from main space to an archived project talk page. There are only a handful of these as you can see here and I think that they should be limited to ones that editors might commonly use. I doubt whether anyone but the redirect creator knows about this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Looks like this is in use by multiple users on their user pages, drafts, etc, and I highly suspect it is also being used in edit comments. On that note... is there a way to search for edit comments in a user's contributions page? The search feature at the top of the contributions page only seems to allow for refining date ranges and possible vandalism. Fieari ( talk) 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately I don't know of any way to search or filter edit summaries (other than tags) and from a few minutes browsing of the available datadumps, etc it seems there isn't an option to download only edit summaries (unlike e.g. page titles) for offline searching other than getting a complete copy of the whole encyclopaedia (even just the text is noted as being several terabytes). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fieari. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I'm the creator of this redirect. I've been away from my computer for about four days and was unable to respond earlier. The most likely place this redirect would be used is in edit summaries, and I know I've used it in that way many times, but I have no way of knowing if others are using it. The redirect was created and proposed with the edit summary "I've boldly added the shortcut MOS:TITLETYPOCON to the top of this discussion". No one objected to it (or supported it ). The model I used for the redirect was Wikipedia:BIRDCON which has been in place without objection since 2014. I am open to other suggestions, but I have found this to be a good, quick way of linking to a consensus that was not considered important enough to be added to the Manual of Style.  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  20:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't understand the details of the Quarry query in @ Liz's note above. Why doesn't WP:BIRDCON come up on that query?

Also, this is not that important and there is an easy work around. If this does not fit into an existing rule and we delete it, I would just refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228#Silently correct an error if it's in a title? in edit summaries. Perhaps having MOS:TITLETYPOCON like that makes it look too much like ||policy||.  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) JuniperChill ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Sydney Powell → Sidney Powell  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. "Sydney" is an unlikely misspelling for "Sidney". Sydney is a convicted murderer who is in the news now, and I suspect most people searching for "Sydney" are looking for the murderer, not the attorney. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 18:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Sydney is actually an extremely likely misspelling for Sidney-- given "Sydney" is how the city in Australia is spelled, I would expect most people who have heard of Sidney but haven't seen the name written out (perhaps they learned of her over the radio) to assume the name was written as "Sydney"-- and I would also expect people to forget that it's spelled Sidney, remember how it's pronounced, and write it Sydney expecting it to be spelled the same way as said Australian city. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Plausible typo/misspelling. Fieari ( talk) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sydney is very much the most likely misspelling for "Sidney" I can think of. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per all above - this is an extremely likely search term, e.g. it gets multiple hits most days. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep {{ R from misspelling}}. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 19:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Horse with a horn → Unicorn  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete as an ambiguous term. Other animals have been called "horse with horn(s)" e.g. a deer in [1] (which relates to a quote from the 2001 Austrian Grand Prix) and the fact that some horses have a horn like structure [2]. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Isn't this literally a reverse of the "Unicorn without a horn > Horse" redirect we were discussing a while back? In any case, adding information on horses with horn-like structures to the Horse article (with a potential hatnote to Unicorn) could be a worthwhile endeavor, like how we added the Hornless Unicorn section to the Unicorn article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I wasn't in that discussion, but does sound like it is a reverse of that. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

For the record, I'm also in support of Keep. Even the article you linked to explaining that some horses have horn-like structures takes an aside to pay lip-service to the idea that a horse with a horn is a unicorn. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 20:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Overly vague, not helpful for search. The search function can do its job here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This description is roughly mentioned at the target, and at a number of other reputable dictionaries:

• Unicorn: In European literature and art, the unicorn has for the last thousand years or so been depicted as a white horse- or goat-like animal with a long straight horn...
• Encyclopædia Britannica: Unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a goat with a single horn on its forehead.
• Oxford English Dictionary A fabulous and legendary animal usually regarded as having the body of a horse with a single horn projecting from its forehead...
• Dictionary.com a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.
• Cambridge Dictionary an imaginary white creature like a horse with a single horn growing from the front of its head
• Merriam-Webster a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead
• Collins English Dictionary In stories and legends, a unicorn is an imaginary animal that looks like a white horse and has a horn growing from its forehead.

So, aside from the hundreds of examples online if you do any type of search for "horse with a horn", which lead to unicorns or memes or cosplays of horses with a horn being unicorns, I'd argue it's definitely the expected result and makes sense as a target. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No one is going to search for the term "horse with a horn". I was part of that other discussion which was relisted repeatedly and went on for two months until I spent two days looking for hornless unicorns to add a section for that redirect to land on—which was not a horse! My same arguments apply here: (1) no one is going to search for the term, (2) adding a horn to a horse does not make it a unicorn, and (3) there are no citations to support "horse with a horn = unicorn" nor a proper landing spot (the redirect itself represents original research). Other discussion was here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Hornless unicorn   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment while other animals may be called a "horse with a horn", it does look like the vast majority of usage refers to a unicorn - I search the phrase and at least the first three pages of google results are 100% unicorns. Rusalkii ( talk) 19:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Even if there are other possible/potential uses for this term, unicorn is the WP:PTOPIC by a landslide here. It is also a plausible search term... people forget words all the time and search things like this. Fieari ( talk) 23:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Obvious primary topic is obvious. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep The redirect is useful for people who dont remember the name unicorn. Crashed greek ( talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep we decide what the best target for redirects is based on what people are actually looking for, not what they theoretically might be looking for, so when there is a clear primary topic we redirect to that primary topic. This term is both plausible and has a clear primary topic. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence this isn't by far the primary topic someone wants if they do type this into the search box or craft the URL, so no reason to delete. Skynxnex ( talk) 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Setindexify there are many topics that can be described this way. Per the above deer, unicorn, and demonic horses with two horns (which should exist in some of our fantasy topic articles) -- 64.229.90.32 ( talk) 06:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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 setindexify. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Trademark Law Treaty → Trademark#Singapore Trademark Law Treaty  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Those are two different treaties. The redirection creates confusion. I suggest deletion of the redirection Anthere ( talk) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Create a set index article at this title. There are three main international trademark treaties, the WIPO 1994, Singapore, and the Madrid Protocol, and we should have one place that lists them all, and possibly any notable bilateral treaties that may exist. BD2412 T 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, and the International (Nice) Classification of Goods and Services. BD2412 T 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I have created Trademark Law Treaty of 1994. BD2412 T 21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I like this idea ! Anthere ( talk) 06:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I have added some content to the section at Trademark, but this could easily be split out into another article with additional topics mentioned. BD2412 T 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 09:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support the set index article I have started a draft of the SIA below the redirect. It lists all the mentioned articles plus the TRIPS Agreement. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support set index per above, and thanks to Asmodea Oaktree for starting the work on it. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• DABify - Usually we say "disambiguation" instead of "set index", but it amounts to the same thing, and I support the proposed disambiguation page. Fieari ( talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguation pages and set index articles are technically not the same thing (the latter exist for cases where a disambiguation function is required but it doesn't fit with the strict formatting/inclusion rules for a dab page). This is a set index articles as it lists the set of topics referred to by an ambiguous title, rather than the set of articles that could be located at the ambiguous title. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support the drafted set index per above. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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 between deletion and soft-redirection to Wiktionary. As there was no support for the status-quo (or any third option) and deletion requires an active consensus this defaults to soft redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Woketard → Woke  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Woketards → Woke  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

While I am aware that WP:NPOV is less of a concern for redirects as they are less likely to face the general public directly, I do question the rationale for the existence of these redirects.

Surely anyone searching for woketard(s), will already need to type the word woke, and I am sure that any quote in an article that could possibly benefit from bluelinking woketard could surely just pipelink it.

I am not strongly of the mind that "These should not exist on Wikipedia", though I do feel as though they are needlessly inflammatory and likely unnecessary. The article for Woke does not mention Woketards anywhere including in the as a pejorative section.

Primarily, I am leaning towards deletion for these redirects, if consensus aligns with them being valid, I am not opposed to the target being narrowed down to the as a pejorative section. IceBergYYC ( talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary There is an entry in Wiktionary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Normally I'm all for keeping pejorative redirects as per WP:RNEUTRAL; however, nom questions the usefulness of this one and I'm inclined to agree. This is nothing more than a simple portmanteau of " Woke" and " -tard"; anyone with half a brain can disassemble the portmanteau, and from there, figure out what this means. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Lunamann. It appears the same user that created these also just created 3 more that similarly are unmentioned at the target - Wokester, Wokie and Wokies - should we include those 3 as well in this RFD? Raladic ( talk) 05:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm a little more of the mind that those three would be fine as redirects if retargeted specifically to the as a pejorative section of the article. Not opposed to their deletion as well, but more interested in the two originals from the nom based on the higher degree of being needlessly inflammatory. IceBergYYC ( talk) 20:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree with IceBergYYC-- those three don't have the -tard suffix and thus have a higher likelihood of refinement as opposed to outright deletion (and are simply minor modifications of the target word with the simple meaning "people who are woke (pejorative)"). If anything, those three should be grouped together; but as a separate listing.
  Just because I would vote delete myself, doesn't mean that I see it going the same exact way. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete If not legitimately mentioned in the article, it is simply an insult and should be speedy-deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Crosswiki to Wiktionary - It's just a word. May as well define it and move on. Fieari ( talk) 04:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are split between deleting and soft redirecting. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak cross-wiki to wiktionary definition, since we have it, and since not everyone who sees it knows the meaning of "woke". Rusalkii ( talk) 20:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not every portmanteau that happens to have a Wiktionary page needs a soft redirect. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 04:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete agree with Chaotic Enby et al. that there's no point in redirecting to Wiktionary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. A term available on Wiktionary is not the sole justification to create a soft redirect. Jay 💬 14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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 2025 Formula One World Championship#Calendar. ✗ plicit 03:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix → 2025 Formula One World Championship  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:TOOSOON. Martin ^talk 02:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Too soon for what? What problem is this nomination trying to solve? 5225_C ( talk •  contributions) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We don't even know if the grand prix is actually happening, maybe its a case of WP:CRYSTAL? Why does other pages doesn't have redirect but only this one does? Martin ^talk 17:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't matter, it's been scheduled so will be a plausible search term even if it did get cancelled. Go ahead and make a redirect for every Grand Prix on the 2025 calendar, some vague appeal to consistency isn't exactly a compelling argument. 5225_C ( talk •  contributions) 09:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This nomination makes no sense. WP:TOOSOON is an argument against article creation. It does not apply to redirects. And I can't think of another reason to alter this redirect. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB ( talk) 06:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Refine to 2025 Formula One World Championship#Calendar. While TOOSOON is an argument that does make sense for redirects when there isn't yet any content about the search term (see e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5#UEFA Euro 2032 qualifying), it doesn't apply here though as the target (specifically the Calendar section) does have information about the event (specifically its date and location). There is no relevant content at Emilia Romagna Grand Prix so that would not make a good target. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Refine per Thryduulf. If someone searches using that string they should be directed to the, admittedly limited, information currently available on the subject. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Refine as per Thryduulf, there is better info at that target article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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. ✗ plicit 03:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Amanda the Adventurer → 2023 in video games#Amanda the Adventurer  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Here is another redirect created for another non-notable video game which probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG. It has 3 backlinks, all of which are just Draft content. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 02:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep redirects subjects don't need to meet WP:N to exist. It seems to an unambiguous on enwiki currently and goes to a decent mention. I'd be fine with a retarget to its publisher, Dread Central#DreadXP, maybe but right now the 2023 article actually has more information. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Support retarget ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep; nominator has failed to provide a valid rationale for deletion. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, WP:VG has been notifed of this discussion. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Redirects have no notability criteria, only ambiguity/usefulness/appropriate target criteria. Fieari ( talk) 05:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep; retarget would be a good idea if the new target had more info on the subject than current target. Current target has more info, and thus, is currently the better target. We can revisit this redirect if/when the balance shifts; for now, no change. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 11:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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. ✗ plicit 03:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Quinton de Penis → Quinton de Kock  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No evidence this offensive nickname has actually been used to refer to this person. IMO an R3 but taking it to RfD instead per the creator's request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, borderline G3, appears to have been created as a joke; implausible misnomer. I don't believe anyone with the surname de Kock has had it rendered as penis in any reliable source. Page creator has claimed without evidence that this is a valid mistranslation, despite the fact that none of the common machine translation services produce this rendering. The additional community scrutiny this will now garner will likely make them regret requesting an RFD, but some people just can't take a hint. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AD5A:8B6:5AD6:C4BE ( talk) 02:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not a G3 - the G3 criterion is based on the mind of the creator. If it was their intent to harm Wikipedia, then it's vandalism and can be speedied as such. If it was their intent to help Wikipedia, even if you consider their actions misguided, then it's WP:NOTVANDALISM and not a G3 case. R3 is based (in theory) on an objective evaluation of the plausibility of the redirect rather than reading the creator's mind, so I think it does apply, but when I saw this at CAT:CSD I was willing to honor the creator's request to discuss it first. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A good deal of vandalism consists of jokes of various kinds, however juvenile, which I imagine in the minds of the jokers constitute improvements, or "help" if you will given they probably percieve Wikipedia as dull, staid, and in need of enlivenment. In this case the edit summary on creation here gives away the game with regard to the creator's mindset, and perhaps a certain demographic does indeed find this amusing, but as I said borderline.

I actually prefer RFD to speedy as it creates clearer consensus and is better in every way except volume management especially in creating clearer consensus. But when the community has designated certain pages for a flow that maximizes volume management that procedure should be followed unless there is a valid reason not to. And for speedy deletion the community has decided that bare objections by page creators don't count. But sometimes a third party will intervene and then there is a valid reason; happened a few times when I was doing the initial X3 runs earlier and IMO helped solidify community consensus in favor of X3, but it would have been improper to start those without valid reason, needed someone else object first. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:886A:FBAE:31BA:5FC9 ( talk) 04:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Nonsense joke redirect. Fieari ( talk) 05:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete for BLP reasons. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep valid mis translation. His surname has "de" in it, and that could cause a website to auto translate to this by mistake. No bad intention was intended by this redirect. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete slowly. I agree this is not vandalism but it is also not useful. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as trolling. Softlavender ( talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Obvious trolling is obvious. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 04:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per G10. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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/ snow keep. Redirects of non-notable pages are permitted and are useful for people who search them if they are mentioned in the target. The notability guidelines doesn't apply to redirects. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill ( talk) 17:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• I Am Fish → Bossa Studios#Games developed  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A redirect created for the sake of a non-notable video game that does not have its own article. This following redirect has three backlinks though, which are:

Curve Games (the publisher of I Am Fish). List of Xbox One games. List of Xbox Series X and Series S games. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep since the game is mentioned at the target. No valid reason for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Oppose, are you talking about the thing that says " To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not blah blah blah "?? Because that doesn't make sense in my book. It was created in sake of a non-notable video game, whose only backlinks to this redirect are its publisher and two Xbox-related games lists. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 05:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The fact that the game is non-notable is completely irrelevant. This is still a valid redirect, and readers searching for this game will surely find it helpful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep as subjects of redirects don't need to meet WP:N, has information at target, and is unambiguous enough on enwiki. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep; nominator has failed to provide a valid rationale for deletion. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  So the fact that it being a redirect to a non-notable video game does not count as "Valid reason" What you are even.... QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 05:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  All the other voters are saying the same thing: the mention at the target is sufficient enough; non-notability is not a valid reason to delete something that can alternatively be served by a redirect. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Additionally, WP:VG has been notifed of this discussion. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Redirects have no notability criteria. We have information on the subject of this redirect, thus we redirect to it. Fieari ( talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The main and only two criterion for a redirect is; is the redirect Plausible (i.e. is it within realm of possibility that someone could type it into the search bar), and is it Useful (i.e. does it take the reader to the information that they wanted to get). Any further criterion are, when you boil it down, some sort of elaboration on plausibility or usefulness. Notability is neither. If information on I Am Fish is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then the redirect isn't what you should challenge-- you should challenge the actual information's inclusion on the Bossa Studios page.
  As it stands, not only is the redirect Plausible (anyone who's heard of the game I Am Fish could easily type it into the search bar), it's also Useful (it takes the reader directly to all the information Wikipedia has on the game I Am Fish). Therefore, we keep this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 11:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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).