Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematicredirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged.Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases,place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start arequested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects thatdo have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See§ When to delete a redirect for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Current and past redirects for discussion (RfD) discussions
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result isdelete.
Redirects nominated in contravention ofWikipedia:Redirect will bespeedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. TheG6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects isharmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such as links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects orfrom elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want todelete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:
The redirect page makes itunreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article onAdam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
It is across-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are thepseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence ofnamespace aliases such asWP:.Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other thanCategory:,Template:,Wikipedia:,Help:, orPortal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted underspeedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is anovel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular,redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers arecandidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect forG6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with thesuppressredirect user right; available topage movers and admins), perform around-robin move. If not, take the article toRequested moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles).Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (seeWikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aidaccidental linking and make the creation ofduplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links arenot candidates for deletionon those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the{{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at thePennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, includingCamelCase links (e.g.WolVes) and oldsubpage links, should be retained in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with{{R from old history}}.See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using thewikishark orpageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral languageare permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral butverifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with{{R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per thewords to avoid guidelines and the generalneutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "AttorneygateAttorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are notestablished terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps underdeletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstreamreliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind thatRfD is not the place toresolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Please donot mark the edit as minor (m).
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding|showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use|showontransclusion=tiny instead.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Clickhere to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place ofRedirectName, put the target article's name in place ofTargetArticle, and include a reason aftertext=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is thecurrent target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert aftertext=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacingRedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 forN number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add{{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after therfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevantWikiProjects through one or more"deletion sorting lists". Then add a{{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in thepage history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replaceRedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider usingWhat links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Pleasepurge this page to view the most recent changes.
Created in 2011, not actually mentioned in the destination article, only indirectly in the mention oftelegraph implies the process of writing at a distance, which is not referenced. A Google Books search for the phrase "far writing" doesn't bring up uses of it as a phrase. This seems a bit too contrived to be useful. The search engine should do fine here.--Joy (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Created in 2009, no longer appears to be even mentioned in the destination article. Maybe it could be mentioned inTelex? --Joy (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This redirect currently links toGraph (discrete mathematics). "Network" is sometimes used to mean "graph", but can have other meanings as well. This page was previously a redirect toFlow network; before that, it was an article. Since users could be looking for various different pages, and there's not an obvious primary topic, I believe this page would best redirect toNetwork, but there are other potential options, such asNetwork theory.The BooleanTalk 01:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
WellNetwork#Mathematics seems like the most obvious choice, although network theory is under the broader Science and technology section above mathematics. I'll still vote forretargeting to #Mathematics as it, again, seems most obvious.— An anonymous username,not my real name 01:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak retarget toNetwork theory as the primary broad concept article for nowDuckmather (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be an established transliteration of this Korean-language term (at least not according togoogle); maybedelete?Duckmather (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at target (nor anywhere else on enwiki); the original creation edit summary wasCreating a temporary redirect for the Burmese musical artist. Maybedelete perWP:REDYES?Duckmather (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject...this isn't mentioned at the target. Not having seen the Simpsons Movie, I immediately instead thought ofOffice Space instead, which has a pretty memorable scene featuring something very much like this. But either way, again, it's not mentioned, so it's useless to those who know it but are looking for more information, and confusing to those who don't know it, so it should be deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Since this is the third in the series of redirects pertaining to the Simpsons Movie's nude scene, I mentioned in another RfD that this is a well-known meme template.Xeroctic (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This misspelling might be unambiguous (even then, that's a bit uncertain), but definitely is not plausible. I seriously doubt anyone these days would misspell neologism as neolism. 🤨SeaHaircutSoilReplace 05:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I really want to say retarget tobioanalysis, but that article is pretty underwhelming and could use some major expansion for such an important and large topic, and technically, bioanalysis i.e. bioanalytical chemistry is more specific than biochemical analysis, the former being more quantitative, and the latter including more qualitative aspects like protein structures and such. So I am on the fence between that and anotherWP:RETURNTORED situation, where we really need a broad concept article at this title, pulling together the disparate content, like bioanalysis andBlood_test#Biochemical_analysis. We could try for a sort of disambigation page, but I don't really like that idea at all, as I don't think we can pull together enough links in a sensible way.Mdewman6 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 09:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambig, you said it yourself: it is an ambiguous term with no better primary target, because it may refer to any type ofanalysis ofbiochemistry. We have at least tree items to start a valid disambig page:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A disambiguation page has been drafted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Unless someone can demonstrate that hex is more affiliated withAqua (color) and rgb is more affiliated withCyan, these redirects should have the same target.Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
None of these redirects need to exist at all. Wikipedia article titles do not need to be a service for resolving RGB color triples to CSS color names. –jacobolus(t) 06:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak retarget all redirects toCyan since that is the longer article. In fact, it might even be worth merging the aqua and cyan articles at some point.Duckmather (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This redirects to the street circuit in Exhibition Place that is used for racing. I don't believe that this is the appropriate target for this redirect and I think it should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a different target. Previously, many pages that mentioned the Exhibition Place street circuit linked to this redirect, but I bypassed them.Cyrobyte (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Note that technically those bypasses were done out of process.Keep - "Streets of Toronto" as a proper noun iscommonly used in the racing press, community, and vernacular to refer to the street course used for theMolson Indy Toronto (and referring to it by that name probably dates me!). -The BushrangerOne ping only 04:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 05:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I have seen some people misspell "Taiwan" as "Thaiwan," but even then, the redirect seems highly unlikely to be stumbled upon, which ultimately makes it redundant.8BitBros (talk•edits) 03:57 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep I found some examples of this error through Google searches, including Google Books. The similar pronunciations are also worth noting in terms of plausibility. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback) 04:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep,very plausible typo. Also the name of a Hong Kong restaurant, but most results I get are typos rather than combinations of Thailand and Taiwan.J947 ‡edits 05:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 05:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Primary topic may not just be thePlatycorynus peregrinus, retarget toBlue Beetle𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nom (as incorrect capitalization)...probably could have been done without a discussion. I'm not an entomologist, but there are apparently over 400,000 known species of beetles, and I suspect at least a few of them are blue. The current target doesn't even list this as a common name of the thing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 05:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
CSD declined, this is a difficult retarget to consider and it's not mentioned in the targeted article. –The Grid (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
delete sadly this isn’t the onion.Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
keep. i'm not entirely sure what this is about, since... itis mentioned, and seems to have been mentionedsince 2020consarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 23:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Looks to be an onion/TOR link. It's still not directly mentioned, just another way to redirect to the website.Template:Onion URL is sufficient for its job. We don't need redirects like this. –The Grid (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete unless there is sufficient evidence that the redirect is about as notable asdQw4w9WgXcQdQw4w9WgXcQ (the redirect, not the target).Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Itwas added byChaetoLv some years before the redirect was created. Maybe remove it per nom, or have a talk page discussion first? Jay 💬 11:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
I added that onion URL, which has existed since at least 2019, toArchive.today. However, it seems too long to use as a redirect, so I doubt anyone will use it.ChaetoLv (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 15:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per ChaetoLv. Jay 💬 09:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 04:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Search results for this term point to a board gameabout the war, not the American Civil war itself. This board game is not mentioned at the target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. I recommend deletion in order toreturn this term to red.Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Is the board game notable? Either way, I think it's dubious that a board game about an event would be the primary topic over the event itself. Search results tend to skew towards commercial products as they get a cut for items sold from their link, so I'm not surprised that search results would point that direction. --Tavix(talk) 17:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm a little confused. I just used a different search engine, and it pointed me to a bunch of civil war stuff, but none of them actually use the term "war of the states", just some terms that look similar. For what it's worth, this term also doesn't appear inNames of the American Civil War.Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I hadn't seen Tavix's second response when I wrote this.Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment from the nominator: I went on anarcheological expedition (or, asLunamann calls them, a history dive). This redirect was created back in 2007, and it was not mentioned in the target atthat time, either.Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer a retarget to the status quo.Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Delete I did some digging but only foundone source that seems to use the term to refer to the war specifically. There are some other hits on Google Books, but the actual texts seem to use the more commonWar Between the States. I don't think there's enough usage here to justify adding a mention at the current target orNames of the American Civil War. Thus, I think people using this phrase are likely looking for the board game which may or may not be notable enough for an article. A redlink seems like the best solution here. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback) 18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget toNames of the American Civil War#War Between the States as suggested. "War of the States" and "War between the States" were descriptive idioms commonly usedduring the war itself for the conflict, and not so much these days. Redirecting to the naming pagespace subhead "informs the controversy" better than a redirect to the main article. This is a good discussion to create, however.BusterD (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment. This redirect got only 67 hits all last year[1] and had only one incoming link, which I just changed to point directly toAmerican Civil War, so deleting it probably wouldn't hurt anything. On the other hand, it's been around 19 years without causing problems, so there's no urgent need to change or delete either. It's not a common term for the Civil War, but I could see rare instances of someone possibly confusing War Between the States for this term. If someone wants to write an article about the board game, they can write right over the redirect as easily as if it were a redlink.Station1 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Usage in articles does largely refer tosex verification in sports. Most of these articles cover a couple of the same cases, so this may reflect usage by one or a handful of editor working on similar articles rather than broader usage. A Google search turns up many results related toprenatal sex discernment. This could possibly refer to other entries atSex determination#Discernment of an organism's sex. Of course, "gender" is conflated with "sex" if we keep, retarget, or DABify using any of these. Good redirects sometimes anticipate such things, but pointing readers to any of these without addressing thesex–gender distinction is inappropriate. So I'm unsure what the best course of action is. I find the nom's suggestion of a quiz ongender schema theory, or simplygender theory, quite unlikely. These articles don't coverexams on the theories, anyway. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the google results,prenatal sex discernment seems the much more common usage of this term. I agree that a quiz on gender theory seems very niche in comparison. Happy for this to change to a disambiguation withprenatal sex discernment andsex verification in sports as the main things to be disambiguated, and incoming links updated.SFB 12:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Re-target tosex determination, which seems to be our disambiguation page for the various topics this might refer to ... and add any that are missing.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 04:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Contrary to the edit summary of this redirect's creation, I would not call it "valid and proper".— An anonymous username,not my real name 04:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
PerWP:SSRT, the main purpose of having a soft Wikt redirect is either for commonly used terms without articles or to discourage the creation of articles for topics that don't need a Wikipedia article but are repeatedly given one. Neither applies here; this page has a single mainspace incoming link and has apparently never existed as an article. If anything, its history shows that it's become a target for vandalism by unregistered users. Delete.— An anonymous username,not my real name 03:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Was original page title, structured oddly, deleteThepharoah17 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. We normally keep{{R from move}} redirects, for good reason, but this article was only at this title for its first circa 10 hours and that was in 2018, so most of the usual reasons are not relevant here.Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Target article don't have list of mayors.Ckfasdf (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
History dive indicates it also didn't have one when the redirect was created.Delete.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I've looked at the articles for every settlement listed atByron (disambiguation), the current target has far more information about local politics than any of the other articles, but as noted this does not include a list.Byron, Illinois andByron, Minnesota mention the settlement has a mayor but neither contains a list of them, meaning there is no such list anywhere on Wikipedia.Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above; redirect target was never expandedTotallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as "racism app" doesn't seem to be a common nickname for Instagram, and Instagram is far from the only app infamous for racist content.Raymond1922 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete perWP:RNEUTRAL. This does appear to be somewhat common and I can't find any genuine ambiguity but let's avoid perceptions that we're callingInstagram the racism app. It doesn't appear to be used in any reliable sources.J947 ‡edits 22:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Please check yourWP:UPPERCASE;WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly states thatmore leeway is given to redirect titles re: neutrality because they're less visible to readers; someone reading theInstagram article can't see theRacism app redirect to it until and unlessthey themselves plug "Racism app" into the search bar/URL. (Or if they go to the What Links Here page, but at that point they're pretty much definitely an editor themselves.) Thus, if there really isn't any genuine ambiguity, and it's somewhat common, then a redirect is warranted; otherwise, it fails the tests ofWP:XY or plausibility.That said,delete as thiscannot be unambiguous; I fail to see how Instagram is ptopic for this overX or insert-app-here-meant-for-browsing-4chan.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
If you'd read RNEUTRAL, it states "[t]he exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful", later defining an established term as one that is "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources". As I said above, this term is not. It is common but not established.J947 ‡edits 23:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Ah. Yeah, fair enough. I was focusing too much, I suppose, on the "let's avoid perceptions thatwe're calling Instagram the racism app" part, and the "doesn't appear to be used in any reliable sources" bit just went right past me.In any case we're !voting the same lol𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete: While this redirect may seem a bit humorous, it certainly doesn't seem all that helpful. I also agree with the points provided above.8BitBros (talk•edits) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Reads like aWP:MADEUP term with only 22 outbound links, and none of those articles source the term or note any kind of origination outside 'more important than avery important person' (sources in that article describing a VVIP just say 'they're richer', not that they're more well known). Mostly used in Indian articles, but other words can easily be substituted over a repeated 'very-very'.Nathannah •📮 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate betweenVery important person,VVIP (hip-hop group), andV.V.I.P. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, but it is for things made up on 22 separate occasions. Since there's two things with articles whose names are inspired by the abbreviation for "very very important person", it's highly unlikely to be genuinely obscure.J947 ‡edits 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for finding those; I didn't find them in a WLH search, but I would agree the musical groups take preference and that's how I'd expect the title to come up anddisambiguation is preferred. I more had an issue with the uses I cited, which didn't elaborate on the concept in article text.Nathannah •📮 23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
As listed in references in the VIP article, VVIP has been used in both the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It's not clear if you're recommending deletion, but I don't think it meetsWP:R#DELETE. I would note thatVVIP (hip-hop group) is linked on the VIP disambig page (V.V.I.P is not). I would also note that a Wikipedia search for VVIP picks up the redirect page and the hip-hop page, but not the V.V.I.P page, which is not ideal. As long as a new VVIP disambig page can have a link to the main VIP article, I support changing to aDisambiguation page.Simon12 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
"Kazak" is a mispelling and I do not think that it is plausible. Note that our page onKazak does not list "Kazakh".Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep A quick review of Google Books shows many uses of "Kazak" to refer to "Kazakh." Thus, I think this seems like a plausible misspelling. This was the original title of an article that was merged into the current target. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback) 02:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep, a very plausible misspelling.Thryduulf (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Misleading. There is no such list at theEugenics page. In addition, it is a broken section link.Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete This should be a standalone article, or there is consensus that such a list shouldn't exist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
per creation rationale, ironically. mentioned in passing atkitanda with a source that... to say the least, i'm not exactly willing to trust the plausibility of, as damn near every mention of the term that i could find outside of that article is from and/or about kitanda itself. i guess it'd be better off retargeted to kitanda, maybe with an anchorconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 16:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Not mentioned in target article or any other article. Was an unreferenced stub in 2007 when it got redirected to now deleted character list.Mika1h (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Procedural nomination: previously mistakenly nominated at AfD by a temporary account. I think the question is, is this the correctWP:PRIMARYTOPIC for VRR, or is it a case ofWP:MALPLACED, in which caseVRR (disambiguation) should be moved here. Hope I've got the terminology right! Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Move dab to the base title orRetarget toVariable refresh rate. Not only is that that overwhelming primary topic in my google search results,WikiNav shows that between a quarter and a third of visitors to the target go to the disambiguation page, andWikiNav for the dab page shows variable refresh rate got 100% of outgoing views from the dab page.Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Move dab to base title. Page views over the last 30 days (I should probably check longer, but ehh) do favor variable refresh rate, but not by a ton, and unless it's really really overwhelming (like IBM or something), I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the dab page for TLAs like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
This should probably redirect towargame instead ofWarGames. In fact, all of the current links to it mistakenly assume that it does that. Certainly this is a judgement call in the area ofWP:DIFFPLURAL... but, really,WarGames is aWP:DIFFCAPS from the regular topic ofwargames.Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Okay, first: When submitting an RFD, the listing should show the redirect's CURRENT target at top, not what you think it should go to. (I.E. it should show "Wargames >WarGames" rather than "Wargames >Wargame"). That confused me for a good hot second (i.e. "Wait, you want it to go to... the redirect's current target???"); hope you don't mind me fixing this.That said,retarget toWargame as per nom. TheWP:SMALLDETAILS are clearly winning out here.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Huh, TIL! Thanks for the fix. And the weighing-in.Dingolover6969 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
These two redirects, in particular, should point to the same target, and I believeTemplate:More citations needed would be the best option in this case.8BitBros (talk•edits) 10:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target. Extremely unlikely search term due to the disambiguation and as both parishes and counties are largely obsolete in New South WalesAusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target. Not useful for readers and an unlikely search term given counties are effectively obsolete in New South Wales.AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Though this redirect was deleted as a result ofWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 16#Free New Mexico Party, the recreation of this redirect (I did not tag it with{{Db-g4}} since it has a different target than it did prior to being deleted as a result of the previous discussion), and the new target does not resolve any of the issues that were mentioned in the previous discussion since the target is still affiliated withLibertarian Party (United States), which the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with, resulting in aWP:REDLINK situation to potentially connect the subject of this redirect with its new primary parent topic.Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@Myceteae,Lenticel, andChessrat: Ping participants of previous discussion, as well as the creator of this redirect.Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The statement "the subject of the redirect apparently no longer has any affiliation with" is incorrect and has been incorrect the whole time. TheFree New Mexico Party was created in 2022 and has been affiliated with theLibertarian Party (United States) the entire time since its creation.
For what it's worth, this is actually stated on the current target page of the redirect. The table entry says "Free New Mexico Party (LNC affiliate)" to make it clear that the Free New Mexico Party is the state party which is currently affiliated with theLibertarian Party (United States).
I'm not sure how much I cared to go into the weeds on this to figure out what the truth is. (Maybe I did before, not anymore, maybe I had something backwards?) Long story, short, if the consensus for this discussion is "keep", all should be well.Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't take much "going into the weeds" to "figure out the truth"- it's pretty explicitly stated in that list article and onthe party's website that the Free New Mexico Party is the current New Mexican state affiliate party of the US Libertarian Party. There's literally nothing anywhere claiming otherwise- which is why I'm really confused as to how every participant in the previous discussion seems to have come to completely the wrong conclusion.Chessrat(talk,contributions) 17:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
...Not when an editor really doesn't care to do more than automated edits due to having no time to make any substantial edits that require using one's brain. That is all yall get for now.Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
IfFree New Mexico Party is now the official state affiliate of theLibertarian Party (United States), then this makes sense. The dates at the target are helpful. The '(LNC affiliate 2022–present)' is a little unclear, specifically the piped link toLibertarian National Committee, since it might suggest the the LNC affiliation is somehow unique to the Free New Mexico Party. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Good point, I've reworded it a bit more to hopefully fix that issue.Chessrat(talk,contributions) 17:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@Chessrat, it is generally bad practice to change a redirect’s target in the middle of an RFD discussion. It can be quite disruptive and can cause confusion about the redirect’s status at various points during the discussion. This refinement does seem reasonable, though. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment The only reason this is up for discussion at all is based on completely false information by the editor who proposed it (doing so twice- not only last month but again now!) despite the editor in question openly admitting they did not even do basic research on the topic/read the article, which would have easily shown their claim to be false.
I think that's the more concerning thing here- it is incredibly irresponsible editing to not only attempt to delete information from Wikipedia without spending a few minutes to check the facts, but also do so a second time despite being corrected. This should not be on RfD still and it should never have been on RfD.Chessrat(talk,contributions) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
These should point to the same target, since both articles use both capitalizations. Note thatChamp Car redirects toChamp Car World Series, whileChamp car is a disambiguation page.Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Leave as is. The capitalization is a distinguishing mark between the generic but dated term for American open wheel racing cars and the now defunct series that used that term as part of its name. The reason both capitalizations are used in the articles is because they likewise are making the distinction between the cars generically and the CCWS. They are related but distinct terms.oknazevad (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 02:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep perWP:DIFFCAPS and oknazevad. Champ car refers to a generic AOWR car whereas Champ Car refers specifically to cars used in CCWS. My only concern is that people also used Champ Car to refer to cars in CART, but that is probably outside the scope of this discussion and CCWS uses the term Champ Car more explicitly than CART.Casablanca 🪨(T) 16:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea why this term redirects here. Not mentioned at target and searching produces extremely scattered results (alternate history scenarios, music, an academic paper), none of which have anything to do with the Eighty Years' War. Delete.— An anonymous username,not my real name 02:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
That in and of itself seems like something to send to RFD, honestly-- why would "War for Independence" redirect to "List of wars of independence", while "War of independence" redirect to "Wars of national liberation"? Given the latter is talking about the subject itself, I'd imagine thatWar for Independence should mirror its target.IfWar on independence should ALSO mirror target with these two... I say we shouldbundle them.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
For reference, similar redirects are displayed below (note: it's way more than two redirects):
This covers every redirect related to "independence war" besides two redirects using "List of", which should stay atList of wars of independence.
These redirects are much messier than it seems at first glance. After all, in some cases, a difference in pluralization or capitalization currently leads to different articles.
Yeeeaaaaahhhhh, I repeat that these need to be bundled to have them pointed at the same target.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the redirects ending (disambiguation) should stay pointed at the list article, as that's performing the disambiguation function. The rest should all have the same target, and that target should be eitherList of wars of independence orWars of national liberation. I'm leaning towards the latter as the search terms don't indicate a desire for a list, but this preference is weak.Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget toWars of national liberation. This target gives a better definition of what a war of independence is, so I think the same applies to "War on independence". Also,List of wars of independence is mentioned in a hatnote in case readers want a longer list than what is already given in the proposed retarget.Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Nominator comment. Speaking only for the redirect I nominated in the first place, "war on independence" does not appear to ever be used a generic synonym for "war of independence" (and it would be a pretty implausible typo given the keyboard placements of F and N). The uses I found online seemed deliberate but none appeared to refer to notable topics.— An anonymous username,not my real name 21:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The uses of "war on independence" on Wikipedia usually refer to wars of independence, but though I did not notice any, it could possibly refer to warsagainst independence. Besides theTen Year War on Independence, which was a war for Cuban independence, searches on Wikipedia for "war on independence" included a mention inRise of nationalism in Europe that is piped as [[Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)|War on independence]], which was an unsuccessful battle for Norwegian independence; a mention inAtatürk Museums in Turkey, which has the textAtatürk's family stayed before the Turkish war on Independence, referring to theTurkish War of Independence; a mention inZoubeida Bittari with the textAlgerian War, War on Independence, referring to the war for the independence of Algeria; and inForeign policy of Meles Zenawi, there is the sentenceThis was the first time of Eritrea since War on Independence in 1961., which probably refers to theEritrean War of Independence. Based on these mentions, I think it would be logical to target something related to wars of independence, and I don't think the nominated redirect is a typo.Mathguy2718 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nom. This is straightforward. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain it's so straightforward-- Easter Island is a territory governed by Chile, after all. AsLGBTQ people in Easter Island notes, Chilean law applies equally to the island-- everything mentioned inLGBTQ rights in Chile would logically apply. The only issue possible is that, since the page doesn't mention Easter Island by name save for a link toLGBTQ history in Easter Island buried in the See also section, anyone searching for this topic whodidn't already know that Easter Island was part of Chile would get confused andWP:SURPRISEd, as it's not immediately clear that this is, in fact, the information they're looking for.Maybe this could be an issue fixed via hatnote, but I'm unsure quite how to phrase it-- or where to put it (i.e. put it atLGBTQ rights in Chile with a link toLGBTQ people in Easter Island, or swap it around, put the hatnote atLGBTQ people in Easter Island and link toLGBTQ rights in Chile).𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Anyone who has searched for or clicked on "Easter Island" is expecting a focused discussion on the territory. As you note, Easter Island's political and legal status is explained immediately in the lead atLGBTQ people in Easter Island. There will be no RSURPRISE with the retargeting and the article directly addresses the national context. Additional links and explanations can be added toLGBTQ people in Easter Island to highlight related articles, although my read is that this is already handled quite clearly. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per nom and Myceteae. Someone using this search term is looking specifically for information related to Easter Island and not only will they find that there, the lead makes it explicit that Chilean law applies equally to the island (with "Chilean law" piped toLGBTQ rights in Chile) and there is also an explicit link to that article in the see also section. I don't know why we'd try and shoehorn a link to Easter Island specifically in the main article in order that people directed to the less relevant article can find the directly relevant one when we can just direct them to the directly relevant one in the first place?Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, the Cardinals are the first thing you think of when you think of Baseball in St. Louis, Missouri/Greater St. Louis, but they are not the only Baseball team named St. Louis. Could also refer to the formerSt. Louis Browns. And could also be a misspelling ofSaint Louis Billikens baseball. Keep in mind that people tend to search for the Mascot when searching for professional teams and use mascots less and sports in the name more when searching for college teams. And I should also mention that the unity between College teams in different sports is likely significantly higher than the unity between professional teams in the same city/region.Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Cardinal" isn't problematic(usually). --Tavix(talk) 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget per Left guide. Regardless of why this was created, this is a plausible search term and the only issue is that we have multiple relevant articles. Handily we have a ready-made list of those articles so we should target that.Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
That makes sense.Saint Louis University uses a spelled out "Saint Louis" in contrast to the city which uses an abbreviated "St. Louis". --Tavix(talk) 16:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambig. It's also ambiguous with basketball teams representing Washington, DC and potentially other places listed at theWashington dab page.Sports in Washington exists, and it would be possible to expand that to be a list of sports teams representing places called Washington, but I'm undecided if that would be desirable.Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguate perThryduulf. There are numerous possibilities here.BD2412T 04:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
That's not "Washington Basketball Team", it's "Washington" with a descriptor of 'basketball team' behind it. That's why 'basketball team' is in lowercase in the body of the text. --Tavix(talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
As would I.Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
dabify per Thryduulf --Lenticel(talk) 05:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Wizards" isn't problematic. --Tavix(talk) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Dabify per Thryduulf. There are many possibilities of what this could mean so a redirect to one of the won't do.Chorchapu (talk |edits) 19:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disambiguate or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
not seeing affinity with korean, and this is far from the character's only use or meaning in korean. used to be a redirect tohangul, but i also don't think it'd be too good in that area, since it's not mentioned thereconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete perWP:FORRED. Not a helpful redirect. --Sable232 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
In kowiki, it's a disambiguation page.Abesca (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per all. Recent (improper) retargeting by anon, and the prior target wasn't good as well. Jay 💬 15:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete.WP:FORRED applies to the current target and the term is ambiguous in Korean, anyway. I disagree that we don't typically delete Unicode characters. We delete CJK characters all the time, typically for reasons described atWP:FORRED. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Which of the rationales at FORRED separate the case of these redirects from the case of other Unicode characters like emoji?J947 ‡edits 04:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
this character isn't mentioned in any fitting target in the first place, so there's no use for this redirect or discussion, and if i'm being honest, there was no use for this relist eitherconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 14:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Emojis are a special case, as summarized atWP:REMOJI and as established most recently via anemoji-specific RfC. Some editors may extend that approach to Hangul syllables that they see as reasonably similar, but I see them more like individual Chinese characters that should be deleted unless they unambiguously refer to specific encyclopedic topic with 'special affinity' for the language. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I find the notion that the language of emoji warrants redirects more than actual languages fundamentally silly.J947 ‡edits 21:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I do find the emoji situation occasionally at odds with how we normally approach things. REMOJI is largely beyond the scope of this discussion except to say there’s no reason we should expand that reasoning to new territory. Search results are better for밴, which is ambiguous and is defined on multiple pages. The same would be true for some emoji but the community had chosen a weird carve out there. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete perWP:FORRED. It's just one of 11172 possible syllables in Hangul. In addition,wikt:밴 lists both the noun forvan and anadnominal verb conjugation for배다 (baeda). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
actually, let's make the case funnier. from what i've been able to find, 밴 by itself is used for just about everything that would be spelled as "van" here. that means vans, sure, but it also means thesurname anddutch prefix, so even if affinity was proven, it would likely still face the problem of being vagueconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s) 20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
This is the same for the English termVan.J947 ‡edits 21:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Oddly enough, this is anx and y redirect, as we also have an article ondying. My first instinct was to have this deleted, but maybe this should be retargeted todying, sincedeath is mentioned in the lead sentence.Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete, the nominator makes a good point that this is an "x and y" redirect so it's ambiguous whether this should redirect todeath ordying.JIP |Talk 09:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete Agree with JIP - retargeting to either death or dying would be misleading - I think this is a plausible search term and maybe a future standalone article, but don't see any appropriate target.Asteramellus (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. The use of title case makes me somewhat sympathetic towards retargeting but the lack of the wordon is significant. I'm slightly more inclined to just deleting to remove ambiguity, but I wouldn't wholly opposed to retargeting.— An anonymous username,not my real name 02:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This was a systematic creation by a user who had a history with dubious systematic creations. They took theWashington Football Team name and applied it to the other major sports teams. The problem with that is unlikeRedskin, the name "Texans" isn't problematic. --Tavix(talk) 15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Retarget toSports in Houston, which has links to all the football teams representing the city. Regardless of why this was created, this is a plausible search term and the only issue is that we have multiple relevant articles. Handily we have a ready-made list of those articles so we should target that.Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Although August 32 may refer to the meme and glitch fromBoku no Natsuyasumi, it could also be used to refer to the filmAugust 32nd on Earth and may cause confusion.Uffda608 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak Retarget per nom on basis of article vs short section. Maybe Hatnoting can maybe fix the confusion?Warm Regards,Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Which target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk! 00:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:delete