Select Page

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1

May 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2025.

CUSMA

This term in all-caps is unambiguous, so this should be retargeted to United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement per Elli, and add a hatnote to Cusma there. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Arizona, Tempe

People mix up Arizona's two largest state universities all the time, and this misleading redirect set does not help. Arizona State University is not part of the University of Arizona, though they share a board of regents. I understand why it might look reasonable to create at a forum like AfC, but this is a bad idea (and a very seldom-used one, 66 pageviews in five years). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 10:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the reasons for keeping, but I agree with what Steel1943 explained above. The fact is that University of Arizona is located in Tucson, not Tempe and adding such redirect would be misleading - I think keeping such redirects would reinforce incorrect detail and further contribute to spreading the misnomer. Asteramellus (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. Search results should suffice. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is Steve Jobs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Steve Jobs on the directed page. "Who the hell is Steve Jobs" does not have anything to do with the Ligma joke Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's a meme:
Person 1: It's so sad that Steve Jobs died of Ligma.
Person 2: Who the hell is Steve Jobs?
Person 1: Ligma balls. SandSerpentHiss (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inside jokes have no place in an encyclopedia.
Joe vom Titan (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ghana road accident

I'm genuinely not sure what is best here. On the one had this is an incredibly vague title (Road incidents in Ghana contains multiple other notable road accidents) but this is a {{R from move}} and the article was at this title for the first ~10 months of its existence, including when it was discussed as part of a group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujarat road accident (one of the most confusing AfDs I've seen). There is no Traffic collisions in Ghana or similar article or list that I've found that would make an obvious place to retarget to (otherwise I'd have just boldly done that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I initially proposed this for deletion and have not changed my mind. The accident, though sad, was not notable in the WP sense. There are unfortunately dozens of such accidents somewhere every year. My vote is to remove both the article and its aliases. ubiquity (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is only about the redirect. If you think the article should be deleted you'll need to nominate that separately. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gore

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Rusalkii (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not mentioned at the target, so redirect does not appear to be useful in its current state. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the BLAR contested? I looked through the edit history but I didn't see anything. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was BLARed, and the nominator is now contesting that decision through an RfD. When there's a redirect with a substantial page history such as this one, restoring and sending to AfD is a common practice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator is not contesting the blank-and-redirect. To do that they would need to give some kind of rationale why there should be an article at that title. Instead, the issue with the redirect is due to a lack of mention at the target. That is best resolved by adding a mention (which I have done), not necessarily by restoring the article. Restoration should only occur when the subject may be notable, but nobody has made such a case. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts now that there's a mention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

President of Vatican City

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such title. The Pope is the equivalent of the president. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Could refer to the head of state of the Holy See (the pope) or the President of the Pontifical Comission. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season One

Long, implausible redirects that are highly unlikely search terms to an article that does not even have a list of Shen Gong Wus, plus there is already a redirect Shen Gong Wu to the target article, thus all three should be deleted 2603:7000:2600:298D:F9E8:D6DF:BC72:9CC9 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Length is not relevant and on the face of it these seem like perfectly plausible search terms. What matters is whether we have relevant content at the target (if so keep) or elsewhere (if so retarget there), with deletion only being the way forward if we have no relevant content elsewhere. I've looked at the target page and there are lists of characters there and of season plots, but I don't understand the topic enough to know whether those lists are relevant to the search terms though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They were converted to redirects with comment redirecting for merge, but it is unclear if a merge was done, or only the mergefrom tags were removed. Jay 💬 10:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 03:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 17:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the content is actually merged, which it doesn't appear to have been and imo should not be, since it looks like minimally sourced fancruft. As is, there are no lists of Shen Gong Wu ("mystical objects with powers that balance the forces of good and evil") or even any specific ones mentioned at the target. Rusalkii (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page histories? The pages appear to have been BLARd, and not merge-and-redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Down

Not mentioned at target. Minimal information exists at Final_Fantasy_VI#Localization; there is also a band named after the item, which is mentioned at Kane_Roberts#Career, as well as Phoenix Down (The Unguided song). As for the last two, I am not sure the misspelling is likely enough to warrant a redirect independent of the outcome for the other three. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added a section in the article referencing them, and they could be further refined to point to the section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion I was invited to this discussion by some entity - human or bot - that was under the impression that I had some interest in this topic/discussion, which I apparently do not, as I do not show up in the history of any of these pages. While I do appreciate being advised of anything I might be interested or involved in, it might help people if it told what specific page or issue triggered someone's involvement. I mean, where I have interest or involvement with something I do appreciate a warning, but, to put it bluntly, I don't know what the hell I did to be honored with the privilege of this invite. Thank you for reading.

    "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

    Thank you.
    Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfc1394: I do not show up in the history of any of these pages. Of course you do. You created Phoenix down in September 2008 (as you can see here), which explains why you were notified by the nominator. CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.N.I.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Uni. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Sheeran's album "+" also has a track with this name. I am RedoStone (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Water (album, ARTIST NAME)

Redirects with disambiguators styled in a way where their utility is questionable. Their standardly-disambiguated titles, Water (Annabelle Chvostek album) and Water (Conor Oberst album), exist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time/Space Mage

Not mentioned at target; while I retargeted Time Mage to Final Fantasy V#Job System, "space mage" does not seem to be mentioned anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian cargo plane crash

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Ukrainian cargo plane crash

Alaska C-I7 plane crash

Wrong symbol (uses a capital I instead of a 1). Delete. Mr slav999 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this not a plausible enough mistake to keep? It gets picked up by OCR sometimes. As a redirect, it seems harmless enough, it was a former title of the page, it gets over a view per month, and it's unambiguous (assuming Alaska C-17 plane crash is also unambiguous; probably should be tagged as an avoided double redirect to that title). I'll say keep off that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt

The redirect has WP:FORRED issues. Apparently, this phrase is Polish for "Merry Christmas", which is a redirect towards Christmas and holiday season. Well ... between the current target, Christmas and holiday season, and Christmas, none of them mention this redirect and the only one that includes the words "Poland" or "Polish" is Christmas. However, Christmas seems to not meet WP:FORRED in any capacity that would warrant this redirect targeting there (such as proof Christmas originated in Poland, etc.). So ... I'm thinking delete here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change Target to Christmas and holiday season#Merry Christmas and Happy Christmas Understanding concerns regarding policy, I don't see how this policy helps improve Wikipedia. Apply WP:IAR which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my years of citing WP:FORRED, the primary concern seems to be that if there is nothing specific to the English Wikipedia which we can adequately direct readers to explain why they redirected where they are going, the redirect should not exist since such a situation creates a couple of issues: It does not explain the phrase to readers of English or why it's notable in English text in reference to the foreign language (which is sometimes stated as "affinity" to the foreign language), and the existence of the redirect could potentially direct Polish readers to the English Wikipedia when they are using third party search engines instead of a more applicable location, such as the Polish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 I searched the redirect title and no results showed English websites. I understand your concerns about WP:FORRED, but at the end of the day it could be worse. I have come across some very inaccurate ones. At bare minimum, my vote for changing target at least meets the Translation. Thank you for discussing. (I am not saying the discussion is over, if you have any more to say to me, please let me know what it is. Thank you) Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short break

Neither one of these are mentioned in their respective target articles. However, these redirects probably shouldn't be retargeted to either one anyways. Essentially, the phrase is incredibly ambiguous. A "short break" could also be something like a lunch break or an intermission. The phrase is too vague to refer to anything to a point where a disambiguation page or a set index would be potentially misleading. So ... delete them both. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A short break isn't always a holiday/vacation Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Restore Per comments of Thryduulf Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. For example, "taking a short break" was commonly what they would call going on a commercial break on a live television show, but they certainly didn't mean "vacation". Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (per @Thryduulf) and then IMMEDIATELY send to AfD (per @Tavix) - sure, it's "inappropiate to restore an unreferenced WP:DICTDEF" but that's not for RfD to decide - instead, there's this wonderful process where people send articles that people wouldn't think be suitable for Wikipedia that's just begging to be used here. No points for guessing what this process is abbreviated as (hints: 3 letters long, starts with A, ends with fD) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Someone-123-321: Whenever a redirect gets nominated at RfD (hint: the R stands for redirect!), there is a determination that needs to be made regarding any edit history the redirect may have. That is absolutely what RfD is for—this is not an article so it would be inappropriate to send this to AfD, no matter how much you're begging. As part of the determinations that RfD !voters make, they may decide that there is edit history that may be notable. Then and only then should that edit histroy be restored. Simply restoring it for the sake of AfD is an abuse of process. RfD can and should be capable of saying "yes this may be notable" or "no it's not" and as part of my !vote I have determined that such article is a failure of WP:DICTDEF and should not be restored without reliable sourcing. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your view is well known, but it is not (as you keep attempting to present it) one that is in accordance with community consensus or the letter or spirit of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. RfD absolutely does not and should not be used to delete article content that is not speedily deletable and has not been the subject of a prior consensus discussion in an appropriate forum that resulted in a consensus to delete it. I've explained the reasons for this at length many, many times so shall not repeat myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself (per usual with these unnecessary replies), but just to set the record straight there was no such consensus on this matter: this close does not comment on WP:RFD suitability for BLARs in any scenario, nor does it comment on what deletion venue is appropriate for what kind of page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address anything in my comment: There is no community consensus in favour of your position, which remains incompatible with the basic fundamental principle of Wikipedia that nothing is deleted without a consensus at an appropriate venue, and that the appropriate venue for deletion of article content is AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roubke

Unlikely misspelling. Does not seem to be attested on the web either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible typo of an alternate spelling. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heil elon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 16:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. O.N.R. (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible, both as a search term and also as a linked term. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is a bad joke by some unfunny user. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the term is present in the article at Elon Musk salute controversy#Far-right. Also, the title consists of "heil", a term for the content presented in the article, and "Elon", the subject present in the article. BarntToust 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BarntToust, are you referring to this line in the article: rapper Kanye West posted several antisemitic and pro-Nazi comments on Twitter, among which was an uploaded image of Musk's gesture captioned "heil Elon" in all capitals., as this reads to me like a single person simply posted an image containing a phrase, that you now suggest makes it notable enough to retain a rd under its name? Apologies if this isn't what you're referring to or mean, and if not, kindly please clarify. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah that exists, and that's part of what I mean but also the redirect consists of keywords descriptive of what content is presented in the article. "heil" stands in for the gesture discussed in the article, and "elon" is the subject of the article. So as the R is consisting of keywords, it is valid. BarntToust 14:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure that's a plausible explanation for keeping the redirect. I don't see that the phrase has been otherwise widely used or received exhaustive news coverage. Granted, we don't need to be as mindful to notability of redirected phrases as we do with articles, but one person using this phrase in a tweet I don't believe is sufficient for keeping the redirect. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will repeat once more, the redirect consists of keywords about the content of the article—"heil" standing for the gesture, "elon" being the subject—which may well qualify as {{R from search term}} or something along those lines.
    That the Nazi? / Black KKK member / cousin fu... (eh, this would be a good place to stop) or whatever ridiculous thing he's doing nowadays used it in one of his numerous Twitter tirades is only a bit more of an argument for what I'm trying to say. Not an argument that would stand on its own, but that sort of complements the one I'm actually making. BarntToust 14:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure how unlikely the search is, it's a quote from Kanye West describing Musk as making a Nazi salute, and the quote is in the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Active species

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is mentioned in Laser#Fiber lasers, but not in a way where the mention makes it inherently evident the phrase has an exclusive connection to that target. In fact, per the description at the target, it seems to refer to elements in one way or another, in addition to Species being about a different topic altogether. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usage at Laser#Fiber lasers refers to (active) chemical species, which has a broader meaning outside of lasers. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While the google results are well over my head, from what I can understand there is no exclusive link to lasers. Searches for "active species" and "active species" -laser return essentially the same set of results, suggesting that lasers are not even part of the primary meaning of the term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bleeding and Blood Clotting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Bleeding and Blood Clotting

Organic output

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to potentially be ambiguous, but one of the potential terms this phrase stands for does not seem to be the current target. Third-party search results are mixed between the subject of redirects pointing towards Organic food and the subject of Organic growth. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Xe/xem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Xe/xem