Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 12

< August 11

August 13 >

August 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2024.

Draft:Joe Biden

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Draft:Joe Biden

F. Fitzgerald

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1#F. Fitzgerald

Red Caesar

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 Caesarism#21st century. (non-admin closure) Un assiolo (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Caesar → Dictatorship (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Caesar is mentioned in the target article, but not Red Caesar. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creation summary cites this Philadelphia Enquirer article which makes the connection to dictatorship explicit, but it's too general a target to be useful. The only mention of the term on Wikipedia is at Talk:Claremont Institute#Promotion of "Red Caesar" ideology where, citing an article in The Guardian dated four days prior to the Philadelphia Inquirer one (1 and 5 October 2023 respectively), an IP editor asked "Should we add the fact that the Claremont Institute has been promoting a "Red Caesar" ideology (i.e., a ruler who would nullify the U.S.'s traditional democratic norms)?" but got no reply. Both articles cite the Claremont Institute as the origin of the term and ideal. Given the number of search results the term gets we should probably have some content about it, but unless and until we do the redirect is not helpful so delete until some content is written. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Thryduulf: Content already present at Caesarism#21st century (including a namedrop of the aforementioned institute) could probably be easily expanded to include this term. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a retarget there if it is expanded to include a mention but not otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no use in keeping this here any longer. Intrisit (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caesarism#21st century, where it is mentioned. I'd support retargeting to Claremont Institute if/when it's mentioned there. Courtesy pings: @Thryduulf and Godsy. czar 19:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per CZAR. Jay 💬 13:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assassination of Donald Trump

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Donald Trump → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This has twice been deleted as an attack page, once by Liz and once by Isabelle Belato. While it does impute a motive to the gunman, it also strikes me as a plausible redirect. Hence my taking it here for further discussion as to a correct outcome. If deletion is decided to be appropriate I would suggest the page be salted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plausible search term redirect. C F A 💬 19:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blatant WP:G10 violation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatant" is quite the stretch here. It is a plausible search term. Who is it targeting as an attack page? C F A 💬 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets this criterion as it is inherently negative and misleading. Redirects implying the death or assassination of a living person can have serious reputational impacts. In the case of a high-profile individual like Donald Trump, such implications can be considered defamatory and harmful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per WP:G10. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see who this disparages, at least in any way that the actual title of the page it redirects to does. Indeed, it grants the perpetrator a success that the directed page doesn't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence it disparages the target, Donald Trump. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that is a disparagement. An inaccuracy, yes, but it says nothing about his character, and if followed, the situation is quickly revealed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the redirect does not disparage character, its misleading nature and potential to cause harm align with the reasons for which similar pages have been deleted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert who is the living person being attacked? Can you explain a bit further how they're being attacked? I'm entirely willing to admit I might be missing something (and indeed did a sanity check before declining and bringing it here given that two admins I respect had already deleted it as G10). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a responsibility to present accurate and neutral information. A title like this fails to meet these standards by presenting a false and sensational version of events. Two respected administrators have already deemed the redirect a violation, indicating a consensus that it constitutes an attack page. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also someone who regularly patrols and deletes G10s and so knowing what the community consensus was felt like an appropriate step to take. For me, it seems like WP:RNEUTRAL would allow this title to me if it wasn't a BLP violation. So far it's not clear how Trump is harmed by someone saying he was assassination any more than Obama is harmed by the listed example around his being a Muslim in our redirect guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not a direct attack, implying false events about living persons can contribute to defamation and misinformation. The potential harm is in the misinformation and the sensational nature of the title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. What misinformation? and what sensational title? The way the redirect works is that the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would pop up. Is there any misinformation in that article? Is the title of that article sensational? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests that an assassination occurred, which is not true, creating an initial impression that can confuse readers before they even reach the accurate target article. This misinformation arises from the misleading nature of the redirect itself, causing unnecessary alarm. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big exaggeration. It is not going to confuse or alarm anyone. If they visit the redirect, they will be sent to the appropriate page which clarifies what actually happened. C F A 💬 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People might see the redirect title in search results or links without visiting the page, leading to the spread of the misinformation that his assassination took place. The mere existence of such a redirect title can propagate false information. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this title is a G10 any more than its target's is. —Cryptic 19:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was not assassinated. It's no different to having a Death of Donald Trump redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is different. Where would Death of Donald Trump redirect to? Assassination of Donald Trump simply eliminates a word and brings you to the accurate page. He was very nearly assassinated. If anything, it's better to have this redirect to clarify any confusion about what happened. C F A 💬 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search function can achieve that without the use of a fictional redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a shortened version of the the target page. The fact that the attemptted assassination was not successful does not make it an invalid redirect. I think it's in compliance with WP:SHORT. ~~The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)~~ The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Delete as "Assassination of Donald Trump" would imply an actual assassination; But I could also got for Keep with caveat to mark the redirect with {{R from non-neutral name}} _→AzaToth 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not non-neutral, it's just wrong. —Alalch E. 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear and obvious term under which someone might search for this event. — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it falls under G10 (Assassinate Donald Trump would be a blatant G10 violation, not sure about this title), but it is very misleading and inaccurate, does not seem to fall under WP:RPURPOSE, and does appear to fail WP:R#DELETE #2... as Neveselbert already said, it is as plausible of a search term for the event in question as Killing of Donald Trump or Death of Donald Trump... he was not assassinated, no one that has heard anything about the event is going to think he was assassinated, thus no one is likely to be searching for the Assassination of Donald Trump... and I think I also agree with it being SALTed, until (if) it is ever a true statement, at which point we would obviously need to create a new article using this title... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an attack page. Valid member of Category:Redirects from incorrect names. Falls under WP:PURPOSE: Serve content to readers matching their query. We know what topic they want to read an article on, so we serve them that article. That is the purpose. They misidenfied the nature of the thing or used imprecise words to refer to the thing—they land at the correctly titled article about the thing where they can get knowledge. What else is the purpose?—Alalch E. 21:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About WP:R#D2: That's for redirects that can cause confusion in the scenario that the wrong idea about what something is persists or is reinforced after reading the title of the page you land on and its first sentence as well, at least. Here, there is no such confusion, because if someone thinks that Trump was killed (esoteric scenario) they will be told in the first sentence that he survived, and "Attempted assassination" is clear enough in itself. If someone was to use imprecise words, failing to distinguish between an assassination and an attempted assassination, while knowing that Trump was not killed in the event (the actual, real, scenario), there would be no confusion to begin with. So that reason to delete a redirect does not apply. It's for more ambiguous cases where the redirect title denotes an incorrect idea that can plausibly get reinforced after arriving at the page, because the start of the page does not directly contradict and dispel the idea. —Alalch E. 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very plausible search term, not at all an attack page unless I'm missing some article history in the deleted versions. I don't think people will always slide in "attempted" when searching for events. We have the 2024 Bolivian coup redirect as a recent example. CMD (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible search term. To get things out of the way, it did not meet G10 as it does not disparage Donald Trump, nor is it defamatory, so I don't understand how it was deleted twice by different administrators as that. Also, to imply that this title is somehow equivalent to "Attempted of Donald Trump" is highly inappropriate – that title would not make grammatical sense and would not be a plausible search term. (As a full disclosure, I found out about the G10s from an off-wiki discussion; I was not asked to vote one way or the other and I wasn't selectively notified). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously plausible abbreviation of a search term. Same with Trump assassination. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting the Reagan assassination RfD result: "Keep". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly a plausible search term and not even close to being a G10 candidate and I'm shocked that two experienced administrators would think otherwise. In addition to the points made above it's plausible for a non-native speaker not to realise that "assassination" refers specifically to an event that resulted in the targetted person's death rather than an attempt whether successful or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep agree with Thryduulf its not a G10 and that people might not now that the intended victim survived so while its arguably inaccurate its not completely as it was still an attempt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1) It's ghoulish and harassing. 2) Trump and the unsuccessful assassination attempt are too well-known for this to be a plausible search term. 3) It's also superfluous. If someone does search for it, they'll get this result on WP and on Google Attempted assassination of Donald Trump as the top search result. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:REDIRECT: "Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles." The redirect would therefore eliminate this unneeded search result. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who exactly does this redirect harass? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump, being declared dead. He's sued for less, not that I expect him to be reading WP redirects or WP. Alternative titles would be "feline" and "cat" but only Schrodinger's cat can be both alive and dead. "Assassination" is not another term for "attempted assassination", it's another term for killing or murder. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, your response made me laugh. I can't imagine the indivuduals listed in the article List of prematurely reported obituaries having felt harassed for making the list. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people on the list are dead now, so they're past feeling anything, and I wouldn't worry about complaints from people who faked their own deaths, such as the fugitive sex offender under 'A'. Maybe I should switch my comment to "keep" since Trump's description of the aftermath has a distinct biblical Easter vibe (When I rose surrounded by Secret Service, the crowd was confused because they thought I was dead. And there was great, great sorrow) — nah. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this search term is actually more likely than with "attempted" in front --FMSky (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plausible search term. I don't see this as eligible for G10 and I don't agree that the existence of the redirect means, in any way, that Wikipedia is saying the assassination was successful. For those who think there was an "assassination of Donald Trump," the redirect to the article about the attempted assassination will educate them. Misleading and inaccurate redirect titles that redirect the reader to accurate articles are helpful. It's just like "Trump assassination" or other variations. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though we have another candidate for deletion. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be deleted then nominate it, but I will recommend keeping that for exactly the same reasons as I am recommending keeping this one - it's useful and not at harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deliberately searched this, expecting a redirect, because I didn't want to bother adding "attempted". A redirect can be inaccurate (e.g. any {{r from misspelling}} and still be a useful search term Mach61 15:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasoning from @CFA, @Amakuru, @Thryduulf, @Hyphenation Expert, and probably many others. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indeed an incorrect title. But {{r from incorrect name}} does exist, and it exists precisely for the sorts of situations where a reasonable search term is factually incorrect. I have myself searched this in the searchbar, expecting it to come to the page on the attempted assassination, and was brought here as a result; the redirect is clearly useful. I also do not see how this is an attack page. I simply do not think it can reasonably read to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass any particular person—the application of the {{r from incorrect name}} tag makes this all quite clear—and the usefulness for search renders the idea that the redirect serve no other purpose than disparagement, threat, intimidation, or harassment to be untenable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Adolphus, unless we have precedent for creating similar redirects for failed assassination attempts. Jay 💬 18:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reagan assassination→Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan (RFD) was mentioned above. There's also Assassination of Theodore Roosevelt→Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt, Assassination of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi→Attempted assassination of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, Assassination of Brett Kavanaugh→Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot, and Assassination of hitler→Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. —Cryptic 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for finding these. They are not precedents, they bad redirects and may be deleted as well. Assassination of Theodore Roosevelt was created last year, and the poorly capitalized Assassination of hitler was created some months back by a user now blocked. Jay 💬 05:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you asked for "precedents", not "precedents that were created by users with high edit counts, existed for multiple years, and/or were explicitly nominated at RfD and survived". jp×g 🗯️ 00:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am really sick of this routine where people will loudly assert something is a BLP violation, and then refuse to explain how or why -- as though the words don't actually mean anything, and "byelpee" is just some sort of magical incantation that you chant in order to win arguments. Well, okay: Byelpee kadabra alakazam!! Do I win?

It is not defamation to correct a misspelled or misinformed search term. For example, there is a part of a sword called the fuller, which is often incorrectly called a "blood groove". It must be stressed that this is a complete load of crap: they aren't blood grooves. The idea that swords are/were made with grooves so that blood would run down them is an urban legend with no basis in fact. But nonetheless, blood groove redirects to fuller (groove).

If the redirect were named something like Attempted assassination of stupid asshole who sucks → Attempted assassination of Donald Trump or Fuckface von Clownstick → Donald Trump (indeed, that second one was a redirect once, deleted as G3) it'd be one thing, and I would agree with deleting it, but it's... like, how in the world would it be defamation to EXPLICITLY CORRECT THE MISCONCEPTION THAT someone is dead, by redirecting it to an article clearly saying they are alive? jp×g 🗯️ 00:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, Obama bin Laden should be restored. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - Obama bin Laden would be a bad redirect for dozens of reasons, chiefly because it is ambiguous as to where it is intended to go, it's not something users are searching for, and unlike "Assassination of Donald Trump", it isn't just one word short for a correctly titled article. This comparison makes zero sense BugGhost 🦗👻 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Obama bin Laden set a precedent. Keeping Assassination of Donald Trump would be inconsistent with this precedent. If we argue that Obama bin Laden should be deleted to prevent ambiguity and harm, we must apply the same logic to Assassination of Donald Trump. Otherwise, we risk a double standard. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like you are even attempting to address any of the points brought by Bugghost as to why the "precedent" of Obama bin Laden is not applicable to this case. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD (and indeed Wikipedia as a whole) is not bound by precedent. Redirects are discussed on their individual merits regardless of the outcome of other discussions about other redirects. 11:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per a lot of people, but particularly JPxG. Redirects are not articles, they aren't claims of truth, they are just technical funnels for users to find an article when they type stuff into the search bar. Users type in "Assassination of Donald Trump" into the search bar pretty regularly, according to the stats. We don't have an article on the assassination of Donald Trump, because he was not actually assassinated, but we do have an extremely relevant article on the topic - Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Obviously the redirect should stay, because it is helping people search for the article. Anyone talking about BLP or it being harassment or whatever is not grasping the purpose of a redirect - there is no claim that Trump died, this redirect does literally the opposite. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pokémon incident

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. czar 16:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon incident → Dennō Senshi Porygon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

extremely vague. requires that "pokémon" and "incident" be defined in a way that somehow narrows it down to only this particular episode of the anime generation that also featured jynx and hypno, while excluding every other controversy the franchise has seen cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should mention that i would favor retargeting it to an article or section of an article detailing most controversies, no such thing exists (yet). the closest i found was pokémon episodes removed from rotation, but even then, that's only for the anime cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far too vague. When seeing the title I assumed it was some sort of (political) scandal or other real-world incident related to Pokémon in some way. A politician making a gaffe and exposing their ignorance while trying to appear to be a "man of the people" or something like that would have been my first guess. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
isn't that the plot of swsh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a clue! I've never watched, read or played Pokémon. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to the above (and a whiny fan base) this is by far the most consequential incident related to the series. This actually ahead real world implications, that reliable sources wrote articles about. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:PTOPIC. This incident was/is overwhelmingly more impactful than any other. Fieari (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It certainly was a "pokémon incident", probably the biggest one, but it doesn't really go by the name "pokémon incident". Googling "pokémon incident" does lead to lots of reference to this event, but also to other unrelated events. It could also reasonably relate to Pokémon Go to the polls, which is pretty much exactly the hypothetical poltician gaffe scenario that @Thryduulf: dreamt up (see this and this for more details). BugGhost🦗👻 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation between:
But I'm not sure if there's enough traffic to Pokémon incident to warrant this disambiguation. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, i'm gonna change my vote to a strong listify (preferrably with a different name), since there's also the 80 quadrillion times the franchise was accused of being satanic, and the 0 times it was accused of being satanic because of giratina cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, people might be looking for the Lavender Town Syndrome creepypasta. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the ambiguity of this redirect caused by the existence of a list of incidents at Pokémon Go#Criticism and incidents. Not saying the current target is not notable, but it's not the only notable "incident" related to Pokémon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refers to several topics, not closely associated with any of them to support a redirect or disambiguation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too vague. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague and WP:SURPRISEing. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photosite

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Photosite

OpticFilm 7200i

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 13:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpticFilm 7200i → Plustek (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of this model at the target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 19:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a {{R from EXIF}} redirect (I've just tagged it as such) and the target page does mention OpticFilm. While the specific model is not mentioned the target article is not a surprise and does give people enough information in context to learn it is a scanner and enough information to usefully continue research elsewhere if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Harmless and unambiguous. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orsini Polypytch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Orsini Polypytch

Хвощ

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. ^Complex/_Rational 09:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Хвощ → Equisetum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No apparent affinity to Russian. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 09:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in common use among English speakers. Pagliaccious (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Estro

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Estro