Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24: Difference between revisions

 

Line 17: Line 17:

**I’ve added that to this nomination. My initial findings find only partial title matches for Andorra la Vella and other places with the same suffix. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

**I’ve added that to this nomination. My initial findings find only partial title matches for Andorra la Vella and other places with the same suffix. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

*”’Disambiguate”’, perhaps with [[Vella Lavella]] and [[Gymnoscelis lavella]]. [[User:BD2412|<span style=”background:gold”>””’BD2412””'</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|”’T”’]] 23:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

*”’Disambiguate”’, perhaps with [[Vella Lavella]] and [[Gymnoscelis lavella]]. [[User:BD2412|<span style=”background:gold”>””’BD2412””'</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|”’T”’]] 23:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

*:I oppose a “disambiguate” option at this time since those articles are [[WP:PTM]]s. [[User:Steel1943|<span style=”color:#AF601A;”>””’Steel1943””'</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 09:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

====(679997) 2023 RB====

====(679997) 2023 RB====

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2025.

Delete. No evidence that this is how the target is referred to or that it’s the primary topic. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target list. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(679997)_2023_RB in July, which resulted in the creation of the redirect, but the fact that the target doesn’t mention the subject was not brought up. This would be a reasonable redirect if the target list got the extensive update it needs, but until then, I don’t see how this is useful. We should retarget to List of minor planets: 679001–680000#997 instead. Renerpho (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, Sudafed is a redirect to Pseudoephedrine, despite the fact that if you go into a drug store in the United States and you find pills on the shelf that are sold under the Sudafed brand name, they will definitely not contain that drug. The drug they will contain instead is something else that has been shown to be ineffective for the purpose that it is primarily purchased for, so the current redirect seems actively misleading and thus not good from a health information perspective. Historically, “Sudafed” was a brand name used for pills containing pseudoephedrine, but that drug has been the subject of legal restrictions in the United States for about 20 years that include prohibiting its availability directly on store shelves and special identification and information tracking requirements for purchases. To get around the legal requirements, the Sudafed brand name is being used for a different (ineffective) drug. Although the brand name continues to also be used for pseudoephedrine, the product that is readily available on store shelves is not that one. If you send someone who doesn’t know this to the store to buy “Sudafed”, they will probably return with the other medication, because that’s what they will find on the shelves and they will not know there is something else available if they make a special request for it at the pharmacy counter. (I happen to know this from personal experience.) To make matters worse, the generic name of the other drug – phenylephrine – also looks similar to pseudoephedrine at first glance. The redirect’s edit history shows there have been differing opinions about what the redirect’s target should be. An alternative target is Cold medicine#Brands. The claim of effectiveness of the other drug was withdrawn by the FDA in 2007 and its ineffectiveness was confirmed by an FDA panel in 2023. Even if the other drug was not ineffective, leading people to information about the wrong drug is undesirable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pseudoephedrine#Brand names, where it is listed. It’s a reasonable search term that some readers will likely use. I appreciate the complex issues raised in the nomination statement, but those things should be addressed through content at the target page. —Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree, since that just exacerbates the problem. At least in the United States, this is primarily not a pseudoephedrine brand name, and that article contains none of this information – and it would probably be inappropriate if it did contain much about it, because such a discussion would be off-topic for a list of pseudoephedrine brand names. I think Cold medicine#Brands may be a better target, because that does not imply the use of a particular chemical ingredient, although colds are not the only reason someone might seek a decongestant. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to making the target Cold medicines, instead, but the fact remains that Sudafed is currently listed at the target I recommended, where it says: “Sudafed Decongestant (made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare) — contains 60 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. Not to be confused with Sudafed PE, which contains phenylephrine”. The solution to “the problem” would be a brief clarification/correction/update at the target. If kept brief, it would not be off-topic. As noted by other editors below, another alternative, and perhaps the best one, is to recreate a full article on Sudafed. But, whatever the decision is about that, readers will potentially use this search term, so simply deleting it would be suboptimal. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s a similar situation with Tylenol, which had a prior RfD and is the subject of a current RM. Cold medicine#Brands may be the best option here. I’m not how to assess the notability of an OTC drug brand for having its own article. A lot of these companies don’t have SIGCOV but are extremely well-known and offer a range of products with different ingredients, making the brand name ambiguous. (Note that Sudafed PE redirects to phenylephrine, which is appropriate since the ‘PE’ is specific to this active ingredient.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myceteae (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It’s worth noting that the medicine sold as “Sudafed” in the UK does contain pseudoephedrine[1] so deletion on the grounds that it doesn’t in the US doesn’t represent a worldwide view. That doesn’t necessarily mean the current target is best, but things are more complex than the nominator presents. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t believe I made any claim that the situation in the U.S. is the same outside of it, but the U.S. is a major market of this brand, and I believe it has been this way for decades. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We had a substantial article at the title, Sudafed, until 2016, when it appears to have been rather summarily redirected. It seems obvious to me that with the tortured history of products sold under the brand name, we should have an article at this title. BD2412 T 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section no longer exists and the branded product is not mentioned in the paracetamol article. There are several reasonable targets but content would need to be added and it’s not clear which is best. The generic drug combination diphenhydramine/paracetamol does not have an article. Paracetamol#Available forms mentions several other combo forms but not one with diphenhydramine, and brand names aren’t included in the section. Tylenol (brand)#Medical uses does briefly mention diphenhydramine but it is not explained and the article does not list or describe available Tylenol® products. A standalone article once existed and was BLAR’d. The redirect is used in several articles. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unnatural title though I’m not sure what’s going on with the edit history from 2005 Duckmather (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was a separate article, then AfD’d in 2007, but we don’t do subpages these days so delete Duckmather (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural title left over from a page move (?); maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what “help” is meant to represent in reference to its target page. Unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Note this was created in 2008 as an “article”, but if restored it would get speedily deleted: There are four sentences there, if you delete the last it would be an A10 candidate duplicating the Tamagotchi article, if you delete the first two instead you get a G11 candidate promoting a website (which is, slightly surprisingly, still active) and frankly calling the whole thing G11 is not much of a stretch at all. There is thus no problem deleting the non-redirect content here. That original content does though make it clear what “help” is meant to mean – “how to care for a Tamagotchi”, but someone searching for help with their Tamagotchi will not be well served by our article making this an unhelpful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not make clear what “version 4” (or “V4”) is meant to represent, leaving readers not finding the information they are intending to locate if they search these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article makes it very clear that there are multiple versions, but does not discuss a version 4 or anything similarly named, the closest being a picture captioned “Tamagotchi Friends, the eighth version of the Tamagotchi Connection line” which implies there could be multiple fourth versions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as political party no longer exists under this name (barely exists as is), so there won’t be another BC Liberal Party leadership election Epluribusunumyall (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BC United or delete. Presumably, someone will replace Kevin Falcon as BC United leader at some point by leadership election or some other process. The future of the party is unknown, as is its name. The ballot name of BC United remains “BC United (formerly BC Liberal Party)”.[2] Also, BC Liberal Party, BCL, and BCLP remain registered alternate names for the party.[3] This means no other party can claim the “Liberal” name for at least 10 years per Elections BC rules. Since the party was known as some variation of the BC Liberals or Liberal Party of BC for most of its 122 years, its recent disastrous name change is not reason alone to delete this redirect. There are others though.–Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ice Attack (disambiguation) ICE attack. Current target is We Don’t Trust You, an album containing a non-Wikinotable song by this name that wasn’t released as a single. There have recently been two prominent attacks on US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in Texas. The “ICE” abbreviation is almost universally used in US media to refer to this agency, and entering “ICE attack” in search engines returns mostly news stories about the Texas events. The song is not longer clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Carguychris (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m not sure if the nominator is proposing that Ice Attack (disambiguation) be moved to Ice Attack, or if Ice Attack should be retargeted to 2025 Dallas ICE facility shooting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Ice Attack (disambiguation) should be moved to Ice Attack. If that’s what you mean, I agree. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943 and @ULPS, yes, the DAB page is the intended target. I will fix the nomination momentarily. Carguychris (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris: considering we are the only two people to ever edit the redirect (me to create it, you to place the RfD notice) + it getting minimal views, this seems like an uncontroversial move no? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but I’ve gotten my hand slapped previously for boldmoving redirects. Also, one of the targets of the DAB page has been AFD’d, although the deletion discussion is definitely leaning towards “no consensus”. Carguychris (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ice Attack (disambiguation) should be moved to ICE attack per MOS:AT, with hatnotes then added to both Ice Attack We Don’t Trust You and ICE attack. That’s assuming that some capitalization of “ICE attack” is the correct title for the disambiguation page. Wikishovel (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion. Carguychris (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel, I’ve implemented the suggestion, but I’m not entirely happy with the results. Further comments welcome. Carguychris (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: The listing incorrectly said that the dab page was the current target rather than the song; I’ve fixed it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It had been corrected. I’ve recorrected it. Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The current target, not the proposed target, is the correct page to put there. I’ve refixed it. — Tavix ^(talk) 17:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  …And I was the one who fixed it first. One of the silliest edit wars ever… Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for the repeated screwup. This has turned into a fustercluck on my account. Carguychris (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, no worries…I just got confused when I saw it, and didn’t realize the previous back-and-forth…glad it’s all sorted out now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to ICE attack. One could raise a DIFFCAPS objection here, but this feels more like Cold war than Ice Cube–Ice cube. Since people often use all lowercase when entering search terms, “ice attack”, “Ice attack” and “ICE attack” can be equivalent but wiki will treat the first two as being the same. I would expect a spike in traffic given that the Dallas “ICE attack” just occurred today. This is a little WP:CRYSTALBALLy so no prejudice to re-evaluating traffic/primary topic, ideally after a few months. I see also that another music entry has been added to ICE attack and that the Alvarado attack has been nominated for deletion. There may be a number of changes that impact this decision in the coming weeks and months but for now retargeting is sensible. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, no affinity to German. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Oreocooke (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, no affinity to Chinese. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reason stated in the nomination Oreocooke (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Chemical elements in East Asian languages where it is mentioned. Warudo (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, make that Chemical elements in East Asian languages#Meaning-based characters which is the section the character is mentioned in. I’ll also note that FORRED says that redirects should be deleted if the target article has no connection with the language of the redirect which is certainly true for the current target and certainly not true for my proposed target. Warudo (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

changing !vote to: retarget as per above Oreocooke (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN: no evidence that the target is connected to France Paradoctor (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence: See list of ship launches in 1746, 1751, 1762, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1781, 1782 and 1783. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERGENERATED Paradoctor (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threedecks is a RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) You didn’t cite Threedecks.

2) Threedecks is not an RS for the purpose of establishing the connection between “flûte” and “fluyt”.

3) Threedecks is not an RS, period. It’s an SPS with no evidence that Cy Harrison is a recognized expert in the field.

4) Evidence needs to be at the target, not hidden elsewhere.

Paradoctor (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison is a published author. He wrote a book on Royal Navy Officers in the Seven Years’ War. Threedecks draws on published, reliable sources (like Wikipedia does). Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That book is SPS as much as the website. And there is no evidence supporting your claim about Threedecks’s sourcing. Definitely no citations I could find. Which is, as I may remind you, a fundamental principle for us: every claim must be traceable to a reliable source. Paradoctor (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say that Threedecks draws on published reliable sources, I mean it!

French flûte ‘La Pie’ (1746) draws from “Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1715 à 1774” by Alain Demerliac. As does French flûte ‘La Chevre’ (1751), French Merchant flûte ‘Le Laverdy’ (1766), French Merchant flûte ‘Le Brisson’ (1767), French Merchant flûte ‘Le Gange’ (1768), French flûte ‘Le Chameau’ (1781), French flûte ‘La Lamproie’ (1782), French Sixth Rate flûte ‘La Désirée’ (1783), French Sixth Rate flûte ‘La Seine’ (1783), French Sixth Rate flûte ‘Le Nécéssaire’ (1783) and French Sixth Rate flûte ‘L’Étoile’ (1783). Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that takes care of 3. Leaves 1,2,4 untouched. Paradoctor (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, not even that. Wikipedia content may be reliably sourced, but it is still user generated. One could of course verify that the sources cited support the claim, but then you’d have to cite those sources, not the non-RS work. Paradoctor (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, I put it up for discussion, not necessarily deletion. 😉 Paradoctor (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a variant language spelling of fluit/fluyt. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it’s different languages, it’s not a spelling variant. Paradoctor (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’ve added a bit to the article to explain Flûtes relevance Lyndaship (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, updated the redirect accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just some clarification, since this is not an area where I know a ton, but what is the difference between “flûte” and “en flûte” in French military parlance? Should one redirect to the other? 13:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llammakey (talk • contribs)

Not described anywhere. Used to host an essentially unsourced article before being redirected to the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried PRODing this page, but the PROD was contested by Eva UX. I still think this page (now redirect) should be deleted. Tokonoma is only one use of this character, and an extremely obscure one that I have not been able to verify to any sources (not even Wiktionary!). In every language that uses this character, its primary meaning is “bed”. Deleting this redirect would take readers who search for this character to the search results [4], where a link to Wiktionary is prominently featured on the top left. This is the best option for readers, who I am certain are overwhelmingly looking for the meaning of “床”, not some obscure abbreviation of a phrase in which it is used. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above. Oreocooke (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• “Tokonoma is only one use of this character.”—>Restore DISAMBIGUATION page then. (it had 4-5 entries before the nominator him/herself removed other entries, leaving but the one associated with the current target….). See page history, and this version (which can obviously be improved). Also, this type of disambiguation pages is pretty standard, please see Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. Either a DISAMB is needed, or a redirect seems warranted and helpful. I cannot see how deleting the information could be “the best option for the readers”. Especially if the wiktionary link is STILL in the disambiguation page…(And it was there; again see old version mentioned!) — E.UX 16:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping! — E.UX 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed three entries because they violated WP:FORRED and WP:NOTDICT. All three of those entries simply defined this character as “bed” or similar, which I absolutely think is something readers should be told, just in a way that complies with our policies and our purpose as an encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I always thought the essay FORRED [it is technically not obvious that an essay can be violated, but never mind] was about pages that are redirects not about given entries in a disambiguation pages. And I don’t think that NOTDICT applies to the presence of information inside a disambiguation page that contains otherwise useful entries (rather again, to articles themselves) but maybe I am wrong; that policy certainly does not forbid to have a link to the Wiktionary inside a disambiguation page, which was the case. Anyway, retarget to Toko (disambiguation) seems to be a good compromise. — E.UX 21:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The other uses on the dab incarnation failed MOS:DABMENTION, whereas the redirect’s target does define the term. Lacking any other target, the redirect is right where it should be. Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Retarget to toko (disambiguation) and add tokonoma per Mycetae. In my search bubble, searching for 床 isn’t overly helpful, with the suggestions particularly not. Paradoctor (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Search “isn’t helpful” because it’s an extremely common character that usually means bed or couch and that appears in numerous compounds. We of course wouldn’t redirect to bed or couch per WP:FORRED. I don’t think we want to create dab pages for random Chinese characters; I was surprised to see we have 中 but this seems like a special case. Pointing to Toko (disambiguation) is only “helpful” in the very narrow sense that it sends readers somewhere specific, but the specific page misrepresents the character’s typical usage and includes a bunch unrelated entries, which seems rather unhelpful. I know I’m the one who raised the Toko (disambiguation) possibility but the more I think about it the more wrong it seems… —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  misrepresents the character’s typical usage Disagree. DUE is not a concern for dab pages, we have articles for that, if and when we do. The term is ambiguous, so we disambiguate.

  “isn’t helpful” because Well, that just supports my point. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a common character whose primary meaning is different from the current target. The usage as synonymous with tokonoma has been disputed, although I see there are two references in the article. Or weak retarget to Toko (disambiguation), where the character appears twice as a surname, and add tokonoma. I prefer to send to search where Wiktionary and various uses on en.wiki will appear. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already released earlier this year in Ireland. (H/T 60th Chicago International Film Festival § Outlook, where it premiered last October.) Slgrandson (How’s my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep this is consistently getting a lot of views – over 200 in the 30 days prior to the nomination. The pattern of views has been pretty consistent since early April – views have not started tapering off, let alone finished doing that. This might be because there are still four internal links to the redirect from article space (and so links from external sources are also almost guaranteed). Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in article and I couldn’t find a meaning for it through a search. Suonii180 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I haven’t been able to work out the meaning of this, but part of that is that it’s never used in English-language contexts that I can see. Search results are almost all low view-count videos of groups of people dancing. Based on Google translate, this transliterates to កូនខ្មែរ in Khmer. There isn’t an article at this title on that language’s Wikipedia, and googling doesn’t help me understand (many of the results are for YouTube videos tagged as comedy though if that helps anyone?). Whatever, this redirect is not going to help anybody searching on the English Wikipedia – someone who knows what this means (presumably) isn’t going to find anything useful at the target and those who don’t know what it means won’t be any the wiser. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment as creator of redirect: @Thryduulf Whatever Google Translate spat out is wrong, ខ្មែរខាងក្នុង (or the shortened form ខ្មែរក្នុង) is the correct way to spell the term in Khmer. (Tangentially, please do not use Google Translate for anything Khmer-related). In this context it means “Inland Khmer” or “Central Khmer”. The term is really only used sparingly to distinguish what we would call Khmer people from Cambodia from Khmer Loeu “Northern/Upland Khmer” and Khmer Krom “Southern/Lowland Khmer”.

  Because it’s used so sparingly and the fact that it’s only relevant in context of Khmer Loeu and Krom is the reason why I decided to make the redirect instead of separate page. I’d like to note that while this is no means a reason to keep the redirect, there is now something similar with regards to the Lao people where “Lao Loum” redirects to the main Lao people article while Lao Soung and Lao Theung exist as seperate articles.

  If not deleted, the redirect could instead be renamed to “Khmer Khangknong” or “Central Khmer people”, the latter of which is similar to what is done with Northern Thai people. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first season hasn’t started airing yet and nothing about a 2nd (or later) season is mentioned in the target page. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so delete per WP:TOOSOON then (and maybe also WP:CRYSTAL) Oreocooke (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are meant for if users search for any other season it will redirect them. Yes not confirmed but those are surely upcoming seasons now there is no reason to delete those there is nothing as WP:TOOSOON because they aren’t full article yet. They are just redirects to make search easier and if the season release which can be similar to the previous seasons of this continuous Ottoman historical series produced Mehmet Bozdağ such as Diriliş: Ertuğrul or Kuruluş: Osman. If releases anyone can edit those season pages and expand them more. Also its not WP:CRYSTAL those are just redirects. Now can you clarify why you want just redirects to be deleted? A$ianeditorz (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no mention of seasons 2-5 in the target page, it would lead to readers being surprised. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not mentioned at the target. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target The Long Night (Game of Thrones) (the more common name of an episode) or Game of Thrones#Bloodmoon (interestingly, the name “Bloodmoon” is never mentioned in that section… “The Long Night” was Martin’s proposed name for that canceled show)? I would lean towards the first, though that is technically inaccurate because the episode itself is not a TV series. Delete as unclear? TNstingray (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously created in error but no relevant section in Immigration to Greece so probably delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a single mention of health in the article about immigration to Greece, but it’s in the middle of a paragraph about illegal immigrants obtaining health and other services from the state, so is only partly relevant to the search term and would make a poor anchor even for a more relevant redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target delete Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this redirect exists because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Martens closed with a consensus to redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the AfD was closed Martens was mentioned in passing in the infobox that has since been removed; however, even if it were added back, it provides the reader with no information on who Martens is beyon someone who worked on the game. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Casablanca Rock. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to one of the articles he is currently mentioned at, such as Jade Empire, Nordic Game Jam, or Minsc. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jade Empire. There he appears, that appearance makes clear the most basic fact, that he is a game designer, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because Kevin Martens now appears at Diablo III again: I’ve looked into this and his mention was removed by Wrath X without explanation during some clean-up, so I assume this was by accident. I’ve also added secondary sources from the former article. Pinging @Thepharoah17, Casablanca Rock, Myceteae, Lenticel, and BOZ: on the changed situation. Daranios (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after readdition by Daranios, or at minimum retarget as suggested previously. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still think delete is probably the best way to go here. None of these pages have any in depth mention of Martens and there isn’t a clear best target, at least from my view, among the different articles that mention him. I think it’s potentially a stronger argument for delete because if he is associated with so many projects. Just as an example, if I am playing Diablo III and see his name in the credits, I would be confused if I type in his name and end up at Minsc. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 13:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Casablanca Rock: My stance on this still is that a redirect to Diablo III makes clear the most basic biographical fact on Kevin Martens: that he is a game designer. Diablo III comes up in several secondary sources. Also, deleting the redirect now would mean overturning the consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Martens, which I would be hesitant to do based on an RfD discussion. Anyway, pinging the participants of that discussion in case they are interested to chime in: @Piotrus, Dream Focus, Sergecross73, KidAd, ApLundell, and Masem: Daranios (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Appropriate redirects are determined by article content, not off-wiki coverage, especially when that coverage has been found to not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Editors behind the scenes deciding that this passing mention is a better target than the other passing mentions does not help readers. They would be better served by seeing that there is no article on this subject. The AfD discussion did not address the actual content of Diablo III, the possibility of other redirect targets, whether this aligns with the purpose of redirects, or any other ‘delete’ reasons presented here. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete per original rationale. A passing reference tells readers next to nothing. Martens has similar passing mentions in several other articles. A redirect to any one of these obscures the fact that we don’t actually have substantial coverage of the subject and obscures search results that surface multiple passing mentions and cumulatively provide more information than any one article. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Myceteae. Kindly unbold one of your two Deletes, please. You already !voted above and that could be confusing for the closer per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#One bolded vote. Thanks! — E.UX 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the ‘still’ made it clear but you’re right, there was no need to bold. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]