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 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• CounterfeitElectronicComponents → Counterfeit electronic component  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Improper title format that gets next to no page views. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 23:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not one of the original camelCase redirects. Existed at this title for less than a day after moving a page from userspace, unlikely search term and not a useful redirect. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not {{ R from CamelCase}}; title existed for less than 24 hours, 13 years ago. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:49, 15 April 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 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Bruce Shotland → Peptide bond  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I am nominating this redirect for deletion due to lack of relevance. There was no mention of this person on the target page at the time of the redirect's creation, nor is there now (or anywhere else on enwiki, for that matter). An internet search reveals that there is a science teacher with this name, but no specific connection to peptide bonds that I can discern. Quesotiotyo ( talk) 22:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A likely student prank, if this guy is a science teacher. Fieari ( talk) 23:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete: only hits on google for this redirect's title and peptide are this redirect and three sites that pull definitions from Wikipedia. Skynxnex ( talk) 02:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I'd like to note that this redirect has always been a redirect ever since its creation... holy heck, in 2005??? Going back in Peptide Bond's history reveals that the article didn't have info on a Bruce Shotland back then, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 03:33, 12 April 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 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Implausible redirect 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep [Delete; after sleeping on this, I agree with everyone]. Plausible and similar combinations are included at Password strength and List of the most common passwords. Perhaps retarget to the latter as a reasonable r without mention.— Alalch E. 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nonsense redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Many hits, but the vast majority are assorted usernames, test strings, etc. No one I can find is using this to refer to the keyboard layout. Rusalkii ( talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I would have supported a redirect to list of common passwords if this password was actually listed there, but it is not. Without such a mention, I agree with nom that this is pretty much nonsense. Fieari ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 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. There is no clear agreement among participants whether the remaining page views justify keeping or deleting. (non-admin closure) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 03:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Great Expectations (upcoming TV series) → Great Expectations (2023 TV series)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now. I don't know what stats the nominator is looking at, but it can't be the ones for this redirect as it's hits almost every day and often multiple hits a day which isn't anywhere close to "minimal". Thryduulf ( talk) 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Thryduulf, I feel like a broken record a bit here, non-minimal page views = proof that it's still useful and should be kept a little longer, let it cook, so on, so forth. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete this misleading redirect for a TV series that premiered 13 months ago and cannot be considered upcoming under any stretch of imagination. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. B.edit24 (obligatory talk page) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - We generally should not be using relative terms like "upcoming" in page titles, full stop, doubly so for a show that's already premiered. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.— Alalch E. 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep here we go again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep for a few more weeks/months as needed. We can delete it after usage dies down. No need to jump the gun here. Fieari ( talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Personally, I wouldn't consider 13 months after the series' release "jumping the gun"; not useful for editor time to sit around the rhetorical microwave, waiting for the redirect to cool off if it's just going to end up in the trash anyway. Not sure what a "re-look in a few weeks" would do after over a year. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Y'know, maybe someone should make a bot that would scan for (upcoming) redirects, check to see if pageviews have died down yet, and auto-nominate after a redirect falls below a certain threshold. Would cut down on the editor time needed here.

  That said, a redirect like this one can still be useful for a while after a series releases for two reasons: one, like other pagemove redirects, external links could be pointing towards the redirect that feed in a steady amount of traffic. Two, it can serve to alert someone who didn't know that the series/movie/game/book had released yet that "hey, it's out now, go watch/play/read it!" Both of those mean that such a redirect is still useful, and I'll note that one of the two scenarios I presented (that I'm not suggesting is operating here, although given how long it's been, it could be) does bar UFILM from actually functioning-- if an external source is linking to the redirect, it could take years before pageviews actually naturally die off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Steel1943: Just for the record, can you correct the nomination? The series was released in March 2023 (a year ago, as was pointed out by some voters), and not a month ago. Jay 💬 15:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Jay: I have nothing to correct: "over a month ago" includes "a year ago". Steel1943 ( talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The redirect's name is no longer accurate (a year ago), so it is unlikely many readers will find it useful as long as incoming links are updated. To those !voting keep "for now", since the redirect has already been nominated, why waste time forcing us to wait and then make another nom? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:24, 21 April 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 wrong venue. Completed the uncontroversial move; all existing titles on and off Wikipedia refer to Bhattiprolu with this spelling. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 03:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal → Pedalanka, Bhattirpolu mandal  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal (current redirect target) is the correct spelling as per /info/en/?search=Bhattiprolu_mandal . So the page and its redirect need to be swapped. Arjunaraoc ( talk) 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Shouldn't this be handled at WP:RM? - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• It should've been, yeah. This is essentially a WP:RM/TR to swap a title which is held up by redirect. Looks uncontroversial so I'll just go ahead with it. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 03:46, 12 April 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. Looks as if "incantation" and "curse" can be interchanged, did not seem to me at first. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Curse bowl → Incantation bowl  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The word "curse" is not mentioned at the target article, nor do any of the topics at the target have any correlation to "curses" to my understanding. It is, however, mentioned at Super Bowl curse, and various football championships have been dubbed as the "Curse Bowl" due to bad things happening, [1]. It is also one letter off of Cure Bowl, which might be more plausible than a target where the title isn't mentioned. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 20:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"Curse bowl" is, I thought, the more common and less precise term. I didn't know that page was there at "incantation bowl" at all, that's why I originally made a stub instead of a redirect. There could be other people who don't know the term incantation bowl. Temerarius ( talk) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. 2 minutes on Google shows that this is a synonym for the target, see e.g. [2], [3], [4]. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep connection between redirect and target name seems intuitively clear. Google results suggest most uses are related to incantation bowl, including academic sources (see e.g. Thryduulf's examples), though with a sizable minority referring to various Super Bowls. Rusalkii ( talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a synonymn, regardless of being mentioned in the article or not (although if academic sources are using this name, perhaps it should be added to the article). Fieari ( talk) 23:28, 11 April 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. With refinement. Thanks for the addition! (non-admin closure) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Chat Control 2.0 → Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of anything indicative of a "2.0" at the target page. The target mainly talks about Chat Control from a singular-usage standpoint, which Chat Control currently exists as a redirect too. External searches has led me to believe that "Chat Control 2.0" is a different piece of legislation entirely, which shares similarities to this one. Without any dedicated content, however, this redirect does not appear very useful. (No mention of "Chat Control 2.0" anywhere on Wikipedia by the way). Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As far as I can see, things found in external searches refer to the same thing using the added "2.0" in the name, but such naming has mainly been used by activists (e.g. by EU Pirate Party) and such sources have not been cited on the article. Such activists refer to a separate earlier legislation as "Chat Control 1.0" (still a topic as legislators debate extending it, and originally referred to it simply as "Chat Control"), hence the added 2.0, while the sources WP has cited don't talk about the earlier legislation with such naming, and drop the 2.0 when labeling the newer. The older "1.0" legislation was adopted in July 2021 but was/is time-limited, the 2.0 legislation was inspired by it and sought to make it more permanent and to take further steps.

It seems good to cover the naming so that readers know what the labels refer to and have been used for, but there's no real coverage on it. Also, I'm unsure what sources would qualify. -- JoelKP ( talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Added to target. ( diff) Keep or refine to Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse § Criticism of the proposal. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 06:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per TechnoSquirrel69's addition. 20:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a term in use by certain groups, regardless of article inclusion, but especially in light of article inclusion. Fieari ( talk) 23:30, 11 April 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 14:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Macmillan Digital Publishing → Macmillan Inc.#Mergers and end  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, and google search found nothing about it. Drowssap SMM 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete not mentioned. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:23, 18 April 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. Jay 💬 08:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Gullible.info → Factoid  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is a very useful redirect. It is mentioned at the target page and receives hundreds of daily pageviews. This title is an alternate name for the subject and it would be a great idea to keep it. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Can you describe the connection between "Gullible.info" and our article on Factoid? Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 11:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment Utopes I'm assuming your nomination statement is meant as humor? gullible.info used to be a site full of intentional false, but plausible seeming, facts (so somewhat related to the original meaning of factoid). Doubt it's due for a mention in the target and even if the apparently defunct website should have a page it makes the search results for gullible less useful when no such page exists. (See https://ordinary.blogs.com/regret_the_error/2006/07/guardian_taps_g.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/technology/circuits/a-gullible-clearinghouse-and-the-art-of-signage.html ) Skynxnex ( talk) 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Skynxnex: As you yourself said, gullible.info is a site full of intentionally false, but plausible seeming information. As is my nomination, intentionally false, but perhaps plausible? Taken at face value? A gullibility test, if you will. ^^ To officialize my stance, I think this redirect should be deleted, (as it's super valuable and the most-self-explanatory redirect on the site, so we should delete it to prevent the word from spreading about how great of a redirect it is 😉) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete As a reply to User:Abhishek0831996 and User:Skynxnex: Context clues, including the information Skynxnex shared about how gullible.info was a site full of intentionally-false but seemingly-plausible "facts", indicate that Utopes's nom comment is meant to be highly sarcastic, and was intended to be read basically as the complete opposite of what was stated literally-- i.e., This isn't a useful redirect, is not mentioned at target page, receives no daily pageviews whatsoever, is not related to the subject in any way, and should be deleted. Quick checking reveals that, indeed, this redirect's pageviews have practically flatlined at zero. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Lunamann. Fieari ( talk) 23:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Create the article if the topic is notable but this proposal for redirection is not meaningful. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 12:58, 14 April 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. Jay 💬 09:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Forced-birther → Anti-abortion movements  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Forced-birth → Anti-abortion movements  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I don't think these redirects are appropriate. The language "forced-birther" seems to be rather pejorative, like creating baby murderer and redirecting it to Abortion-rights movements.

I also want to clarify that I do not oppose abortion rights, but WP:NPOV applies to these redirects too. Rockstone ^{Send me a message!} 07:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Okmrman ( talk) 13:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is why we have {{ R from non-neutral term}}. I don't see any benefit in deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects are not held to the same neutrality standards that the rest of the encyclopedia are held to, as-- unless you use the "What Links Here" tool-- they are invisible in all circumstances except when they do their job, which is taking a search and redirecting it to where it needs to go. In this case, having non-neutral redirects like these, which espouses a very specific and particular POV, are useful for catching searches by people who hold that POV, and searches by people who want to know what the heck those POV-holders are talking about. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tag per Presidentman. Why I think these are different than "baby murderer" "forced(-)birth(er)" appears to be used in more reliable (and near-reliable) sources describing anti-abortion advocates/positions than "baby murderer" is used to describe pro-choice advocates/positions. Second, if a baby murderer redirect did exist, it probably should be targeted to infanticide (or similar) since that is likely the primary topic for the phrase. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep A genuine term - wikt:forced-birther Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:11, 12 April 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. Jay 💬 09:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Grizzly-1 → List of Beast Wars characters  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Another 2009er, there is no mention of "Grizzly-1" anywhere on Wikipedia. Without any content about this apparent Beast Wars character, this redirect is currently unhelpful and leaves readers lacking information. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 11 April 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. Jay 💬 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Gris (card game) → Pig (card game)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of a card game called Gris at the target. Has always been a redirect, used to target Spoons and Spoons (card game) when it was its own thing in 2009. Without a mention or any context as to what "Gris" is, this redirect is not helpful and leaves people confused upon arriving at the page. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. I attempted to do a history dive in an attempt to find out if there'd ever been information on this subject-- and found that Spoons was never its own article, but rather, was the article's old name prior to being moved to Donkey (card game) and then again to Pig (card game). With that information in hand, I found that the editor who made the Gris (card game) redirect made an edit to the Spoons/Pig article on the very same day-- and that said edit contained zilch in the way of information or mention of Gris, nor did any edits immediately prior or after. I can reasonably assume that Pig (card game) / Donkey (card game) / Spoons (card game) has NEVER had information on Gris. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 16:54, 11 April 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. Jay 💬 06:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Great September → Eternal September  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of "great" at the target article. Basically all google search results for a "great september" are in reference to the Great September Gale of 1815, although this is only a partial title match of that. Seems to be an assortment of different septembers that could also be considered "great".

This redirect seems to very much be a product of its time, as this particular September '93 was a lot more "current" in 2005 than it is in 2024. With no mention, a "great September" could refer to a lot of things. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete or disambiguate - Only dab'ify if someone comes up with a list of potential targets. Otherwise, delete as ambiguous. Fieari ( talk) 23:42, 11 April 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. Jay 💬 09:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Great Firewall of America → PROTECT IP Act  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not a topic discussed at the target article. It's only mention is being the title of Rebecca MacKinnon op-ed, used as a reference. This particular reference is the only time on all of Wikipedia that it is used.

But as the saying goes, I'll have two nickels here because the same reference is also used in the Stop Online Piracy Act article. But not only just the reference is reused, the entire paragraph is reused, and quotes the op-ed basically as a carbon copy each time, at PROTECT IP Act#Concern for user-generated sites, and Stop Online Piracy Act#Websites that host user content. By the way, the Great Firewall of America isn't discussed in either, but appears as the colloquial name that MacKinnon alludes to in her quotes pulled here. Without any further information and only 2 locations where it comes up at all, this doesn't seem useful or helpful. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - a phrase that would be great at playing to Americans' irrational fear of all things Chinese, if it could be successfully pinned on anything remotely analogous, but instead various pundits have been trying to get it to stick to something since at least the Obama administration. Besides the examples Utopes came up with, "Great Firewall of America" has also been used to describe the RESTRICT Act, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, as well as proposed bans on TikTok and WeChat. MacKinnon seems to be using it to sell books. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:21, 15 April 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 Jake Miller discography#Singles. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^Edit! 22:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Good Thing (Jake Miller song) → Jake Miller (singer)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No such song with this title at the target page. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Jake Miller discography#Singles and unlink there. Add entry to Good Thing (song). Jay 💬 09:16, 18 April 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 FIFA Football 2003. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• FIFA 2003 → 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

More likely to refer to the video game FIFA Football 2003. O.N.R.  ^(talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambig. Google results are a roughly even three-way split between the world cup, the video game and events relating to FIFA in 2023. I haven't found a good target for the latter, but a dab between the first two is viable with or without that. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Could maybe plug a "See also: FIFA" at the end of the DAB? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate as outlined above as there are multiple things this could refer to. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Revert back to the status quo of redirecting to FIFA Football 2003. The video games are commonly referred to as "FIFA [year]", the World Cup is not. While it's ambiguous, the video game is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a hatnote should be employed for the World Cup. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Based on my research, in practice it seems there is no primary topic for this title. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Show your work then. Per the video game article, it is known as simply FIFA 2003, and my research verifies that it is common for the video game (eg: [5] [6] [7] [8][ [9]). I don't see the World Cup referred to as "FIFA 2003" and the exact phrase does not appear in the World Cup article. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not doubting that it's a common name for the video game. However, as I explicitly said in my first comment, google results show it is also a common name for the world cup and events relating to FIFA that happened in 2023. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, Google results do not show that. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Then we must be seeing different google results, because I've looked again, this time in a private window, using the search term FIFA 2023 -Wikipedia my top 30 results are as follows: Video game 13, World cup 10, FIFA events 5, Fifa Club World Cup 2. That's very clearly no primary topic. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Use quotes, this is an exact phrase. FWIW, my results with that exact search are 27-2-1 in favor of the video game. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  If I may, my own results (for "FIFA 2023" -wikipedia) are the following:

• FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 (fifa.com)
• Trophy and award winners, for FIFA in 2023 (fifa.com)
• Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on Xbox One
• 2023 FIFA tournaments in photos (fifa.com)
• Forbes article talking about what happened to FIFA in 2023
• FOX Sports page for the Women's World Cup
• Reddit, linking to discussions of the video game AND FIFA itself AND the cup
• Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on PS4
• FIFA 2023 listing on Sony Store Malaysia for... some reason... Google, you know I'm in the Southern US, right???
• FOX Sports for Women's World Cup 2023
• fifa.com again, Watch the best goals from the Women's World Cup
• FIFA 2023 for PS5 listing on... Toys R Us UAE!?!? Google pls
• Olympics.com page about the Women's World Cup
• EA Answers page about FIFA 2023 Career Mode
• okay I don't know what language that's in, Spanish? It's fifa.com tho so I'll assume it's the World Cup and/or FIFA itself
• Youtube link about how to play FIFA 2023 on Android
• Dick's Sporting Goods listing for FIFA 2023 themed soccer balls

Summary, my search is all over the place, with no clear primary target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Lunamann: Can you do some critical thinking about what those results tell you? Of these, how many are an exact title match for "FIFA 2003"? Are you are getting results for the World Cup, but they are simply within the phrase "FIFA 2003 Women's World Cup" (or similar) without solely calling the subject "FIFA 2003"? If so, that's what disambiguators call a "partial title match" and should not be used in a (hypothetical) disambiguation. Would someone simply search "FIFA 2003" looking for the World Cup if it's not used, branded, or abbreviated in that fashion as often as someone looking for a video game that is commonly abbreviated this way? Furthermore, do you think an arbitrary dumping of algorithmic Google search results is a good proxy for determining primary usage on Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My search results for the search "FIFA 2023" -Wikipedia -"FIFA's" (the latter exclusion becuase many of the results were for that, but you'd discount them as irrelevant whether they are or not):

• 2× Amazon listing of the game on XBox
• "Smart Home Sounds" listing of the game for PS4
• FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 teams
• 5 reddit threads, 3 about the game, 1 about the Women's world cup, 1 about working at FIFA, 1 I can't work out.
• FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 news
• Olympics.com Answering questions about the Women's World Cup
• Medium piece about the game
• BBC article about the Women's World Cup
• EA Answers HQ (about the game)
• YouTube video about the best 30 goals in FIFA competitions in 2023
• The FIFA Code of Ethics in Spanish
• BBC Sport article about the Women's World Cup group stages
• YouTube Viode about the game
• "Creative Bloom" article about the Women's World Cup (mainly the logo and similar design elements)
• A mod for the the game
• 3 Google Books results, 1 about the human rights risk at the World Cup, 1 that is a 2023 publication about the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, 1 I don't know - the snippet includes "FIFA 2023 co-hosting plan" but not enough context to make sense of that.
• Marca.com about "The Best FIFA 2023" - "what time and where to watch the FIFA gala on TV and online"
• Microsoft Community about the game on xbox
• 2 Results about buying the game, 1 in Malaysia, 1 in the UAE.
• A Youtube video that I think is about comparing the goals in the Women's World Cup with the goals in the game
• An article about all things FIFA in 2023 including the world cup and the game.

So, even discounting partial title matches, the indication overall is that there is very much no primary topic for the exact phrase. And yes, google search results are one good indication of what people are looking for with a given search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

forgive my possible unsmartness, but where did the 2023 part come from?

i thought this was about 2003 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm also not entirely certain, 'twas Thryduulf who started talking about 2023 instead of 2003 and I think we all just followed suit without realizing? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the proposed target "FIFA 2003" the primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - to FIFA Football 2003. As discussed above, the World Cup is not referred to as "FIFA x year". The FIFA games are. I appreciate the research regarding primary topic, but the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003 that's true only if you disregard all the evidence presented above that shows it is. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  No such evidence has been provided. Which sources refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  You mean no such evidence other than the evidence presented by myself and Lunamann of multiple sources referring to multiple topics, including the women's world cup, as "FIFA 2023"? Thryduulf ( talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, I don't see anything in the search results that y'all regurgitated without context which refers to the 2003 FIFA World Cup as "FIFA 2003". Everything Women's World Cup related looks to be WP:PTMs for that specific term. Help me out then: which sources specifically refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 per above. J 947 ‡ ^edits 08:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try — disambiguate or retarget to FIFA Football 2003?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 per above. It's looking like that'd be the only viable target for this. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 - I've read the arguments that there is no primary topic, but even in the displayed google searches listed above none of the other topics are referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023), it's just a google search the has popped up references to something FIFA did in 2003 (or 2023). The thing that is referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023) as a proper noun is the video game, and nothing else as far as I can see. Fieari ( talk) 00:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 as above. Most likely target. Personally I only thought of the video game. Giant Snowman 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to FIFA Football 2003. I've never heard world cups referred to in that way, and have almost exclusively heard FIFA videogames referred to as `FIFA 2003` or whatever other year. The provided "evidence" for redirecting to the event is a google search, which is not a reliable secondary source. Brindille1 ( talk) 16:03, 15 April 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 Big Crunch#In culture. Jay 💬 06:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Gib gnab → The Restaurant at the End of the Universe  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Gnab gib → Big Crunch  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Gnab Gib → Big Crunch  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of this term at either of the target pages, and no mention of this term on all of Wikipedia. One of these was created 19 years before the other, which doesn't matter but still interesting. I've now come to understand this term being "Big Bang" backwards, but without context these have debatable use as unmentioned synonyms, and probably shouldn't have differing targets as "gib gnab" and "gnab gib" both come up at seemingly the same frequency? Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Actually two of them are very old, and yes this does matter. The older a redirect the more likely it is that it is used somewhere off wiki. Hence the injunction Therefore only delete redirects which are very new or harmful.

I have added a section to the Big Crunch article, therefore:

Retarget all to Big Crunch#In culture. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC). reply

I should have been more clear @ Rich Farmbrough:, I did not mean to imply that there wasn't a difference between old and new redirects. I was saying that in this case there wasn't a difference in how I felt for both, i.e. I would push for the same outcome for both targets. Keep both, delete both, retarget both, etc. (I wouldn't want to keep just one and not the other. Either all or none, and at the same target.) Generally speaking, the older a page is the more likely it has external links, you are correct. However, now that there is content for this term, both can safely end up pointed there, so thank you for the content you created at Big Crunch. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Retarget as per Rich Farmbrough. Thank you! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:16, 11 April 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. Withdrawn, works for me. I suppose this is the "German variant" of a language that includes the word German, so it's plausible to type twice in that regard. That also explains the lack of links here. Thanks for the tip! (non-admin closure) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• German Low German language → Low German  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible to use "german" twice when referring to Low German, not a likely search term. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

German Low German language is the name used at Wiktionary for Low German as spoken in Germany as opposed to the Netherlands. I don't know how to check links to Wikipedia from Wiktionary, but there are probably hundreds if not thousands of such links. — Mahāgaja · talk 06:16, 11 April 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. Jay 💬 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:RFDd10 → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#d10  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There's also WP:RDEL number 10. To my understanding though not any of the other points have incoming redirects. This is the only version that points here, and saw no links after a month of creation (as the creator was shortly community blocked thereafter). In any case, probably not necessary to redirectify via anchor; several more efficient and plausible ways exist. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete the "keep" section doesn't have an item 10 but the "delete" part does so is confusing. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:56, 12 April 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 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Chen Mazzig → Hen Mazzig  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

9 Google hits for this name, none of them seem to be this person. Can't find evidence they're referred to in this way. Rusalkii ( talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 09:43, 18 April 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 withdrawn. Meh, forgot that WP:UFILM also applies to titles containing "Untitled". Either way, I'm going to retarget Untitled Guy Ritchie film to In the Grey for consistency for now. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 13:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Untitled Guy Ritchie project → In the Grey  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Guy Ritchie film → Guy Ritchie's The Covenant  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The targets are no longer untitled. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep, the first project/redirect was moved just a few hours ago and has 63 thousand monthly pageviews. Can delete later but this doesn't fall under the 30 day spirit of WP:UFILM. Maybe not keep the second one at The Covenant page though. I don't really care too much about it because the project was just moved and the film version targeted the project for over a month, before being reverted right before RfDing. Maybe do something about this a little later. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:35, 11 April 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 Snow White (disambiguation). ✗ plicit 03:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Snow White (live action) → Snow White (2025 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Can refer to several films listed at {{ Snow White}}. There is no expectation this redirect is in reference to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). Steel1943 ( talk) 03:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget Snow White (disambiguation), many different musicals and films at the page were in live action, should not point exclusively here per WP:RECENTISM. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget as per Utopes, and toss on the {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} tag while you're at it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:17, 11 April 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 03:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• TDVC → The Da Vinci Code  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not sure why this could also not refer to subject at DVC. But, then again, I'm not sure why there any expectation that the target article or any subjects at DVC should be or have been referred to by this acronym in any sources. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:29, 11 April 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 03:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• TDOTJ → The Day of the Jackal  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Though the acronym matches the title of the target page, there does not seem to be evidence that the target page's subject has been referred to by an acronym, possible being WP:OR WP:NEO. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:29, 11 April 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 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• LVER → La Vie en rose (disambiguation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No evidence that any of the subjects in the target disambiguation page are referred by this acronym. In addition, the target being the only mention of a phrase with words starting with L, V, E, then R is rather unlikely. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah. I remember tagging one of several redirects created by Redostone and wondering if these abbreviations are really necessary. I would go with Delete and I suggest looking through his page creation log since he definitely has a history of creating questionable redirects. Okmrman ( talk) 13:43, 11 April 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 Being high and Retarget Getting high. (non-admin closure) Okmrman ( talk) 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Getting high → Recreational drug use  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Being high → Substance intoxication  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Pretty sure these phrases should either target the same target or both get deleted. Not sure which target though. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Retarget Getting high to Substance intoxication, which mentions the phrase in bold. It's also the more sensible target, in my opinion. Keep Being high. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 06:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Retarget and keep per TechnoSquirrel69. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Retarget/keep as per TechnoSquirrel. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 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 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

• Gittigidiyor.com → eBay  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• GittiGidiyor.com → eBay  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Gittigidiyor was salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Apparently, this was the name of eBay's marketplace in Turkey, until they closed it in 2022. Which explains why it's so hard to find English-language sources-- this wasn't an English-language site, and it's also no longer in service.

I'm fairly certain that at the very least, GittiGidiyor wasn't an attempt to get around salt, as it's how the site's name was actually written. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How naive of you. It was salted 22 June 2010. The very same person who created Gittigidiyor twice in the deleted history created this version too on 28 June 2010. I'm sure it was bad faith salt evasion. But that's irrelevant now as none of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't catch that the creator was the exact same, ack. Good eye. Not sure how to feel about you calling me naive, though... Ow.

Yeah, this was salt evasion. At the very least, I'm not sure we need to worry about spreading salt to these locations too, given the site in question is now deleted? No sense trying to advertise for a site that no longer exists, after all. Definitely delete though, these are unmentioned and it's unlikely that someone's going to want to search for these in the near future given... site's dead, Jim. (Not sure how I forgot to add that to my first post lol) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 03:51, 12 April 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 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Nahdonnis Praji → List of Star Wars characters#Nahdonnis Praji  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete due to lack of notability and lack of mention. TNstingray ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no mention on all of Wikipedia. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Maclunkey - er, Delete - Random minor Star Wars characters unattested on Wikipedia do not get redirects. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:00, 12 April 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 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Jerus Jannick → List of Star Wars characters#Jerus Jannick  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Utterly non-notable character mentioned nowhere. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 00:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no content on all of Wikipedia, based on the presence of a subst template in the edit summary, seems to have been created via some type of automation? Or at least, didn't swap out in the summary. No such section existed at the time of creation. Is getting pageviews though from a link, since removed (since no content). Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Maclunkey - er, Delete - Random minor Star Wars characters unattested on Wikipedia do not get redirects. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:01, 12 April 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 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Quiggold → List of Star Wars characters#Quiggold  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Incredibly minor character mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia besides another entry on Matthew Wood's extensive voice credits in Star Wars. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 00:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no content on all of Wikipedia, disincluding casting credits. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Maclunkey - er, Delete - If this character hasn't been discussed or written about on Wikipedia aside from a casting credit then we shouldn't have a redirect for them. We're not Wookiepedia. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:46, 12 April 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 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Vober Dand → List of Star Wars characters#Vober Dand  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Incredibly minor background character not mentioned anywhere on the encyclopedia. Delete. TNstingray ( talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no content on all of Wikipedia. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Maclunkey - er, Delete - Random minor Star Wars characters unattested on Wikipedia do not get redirects. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Don't see if the redirect would be meaningful. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 13:00, 14 April 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).