Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 1

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

April 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2026.

JAVA

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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Ambiguous redirect, should redirect to Java (disambiguation). (NOTE, THIS IS A SERIOUS REQUEST) Z1X4X1Zòwó 20:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - The existing link is to the only all-caps JAVA meaning currently in the encyclopedia. NapoliRoma (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid {{r from stock symbol}}. There are no acronyms or anything on the disambiguation page, so redirecting to the disambiguation page doesn't seem necessary. – Scyrme (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Napoli and Scyrme. Sun Microsystems has a hatnote for Java anyways. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Pop quiz

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 Quiz#In education. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Judging by what links to it, this should be deleted even though it was the result of a page move. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Quiz § In education where it's mentioned. Alternatively, retarget to Exam § Quizzes, which I don't think that would be a surprising target. Either target works. – Scyrme (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Quiz#In education where it's defined. The WhatLinksHere shows that it should be retargeted to a general topic, not deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Quiz#In education Readers using the lowercase version are most likely looking for the type of assessment. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget. There aren't many cases where you'd want a capitalisation difference to matter, but this is obviously one of them. Deleting would be unhelpful, and we'd end up seeing it recreated soon by someone with more common sense than RFD awareness. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Quiz#In education. I agree with the retarget rationales above. Add a hatnote pointing to Pop Quiz for readers who are looking for that target. WP:DIFFCAPS is sufficient to make the show the primary topic for Pop Quiz but the general topic is the primary topic for the sentence case Pop quiz and pop quiz. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Multiple identity

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, disambiguate. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 06:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Didn't Plural identity become ambiguous with this now? If so, a hatnote, a retarget, or a disambiguation page? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple personality. Abesca (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - "Multiple identity" is broad and ambiguous and redirecting it to "Social identity complexity" is narrowing the scope and misleading. Asteramellus (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
From Asteramellus's comment, I'm inclined to say dabify.
Second option for me would be to retarget to Plural identity, with no hatnote unless a stronger argument says otherwise. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I, too, am inclined to dabify. A quick Google suggests other entries in addition to those already mentioned, including holding multiple social identities (as discussed, e.g., here and here) and dissociative identity disorder. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate and check with the math department to see if there is any possible mathematical meaning. BD2412 T 21:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    • It has been used in mathematics but I think not frequently enough nor with a consistent enough meaning to require disambiguation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Multiple identities exist in math (e.g., 0 and 1 in rings, and semigroups can have multiple one-sided identities), but I agree with David--there is no common single topic to disambiguate. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although one could say it in mathematics (just as one could put many other words after "multiple"), it is not a standard expression. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    • @Ebony Jackson: A draft having been created, it appears that there are multiple ambiguous meanings unrelated to mathematics. BD2412 T 17:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation draft requested (done) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation drafted. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete (at least for now). My first thought was multiple citizenship since citizenship is connected to identity. And indeed, this meaning is found in some places like Vladimir Plahotniuc#Multiple identity. In addition, both Double Identity and Dual identity mention Secret identity as a possible term. I could see this being connected to multiple identity. It seems that in mathematics, multiple identity is sometimes a short form of Multiplicative identity. Multiple Identity is a song from the album Dope Humor of the Seventies, but that of course uses title case and isn't notable. Without any explanation of any of these (unrelated) terms from searching "Multiple identity", this situation is currently unhelpful. The disambiguation draft is already marked as done, so it gives the appearance that the draft is sufficient, but I object (for now) to that because there are multiple meanings we have content on but aren't mentioned in this draft page. In addition, some items that are there just say "multiple" of something and mean nothing more than "identities". Those seem to mean "multiple identities" instead, which might have slightly different meaning. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Mathguy2718: Template:Disambiguation draft requested populates Category:Pages where a disambiguation draft is requested, which is intended to solicit help from non-participants in the discussion. Per that template's documentation, When you respond to a request, please remember to add |d at the end of the template. This will remove it from the category and add a (done) to the end of the message. This does not preclude other participants in the discussion from modifying the proposed disambiguation. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    By definition, both Double Identity and Dual identity are kinds of Multiple identity. BD2412 T 22:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Even reviewing the draft disambiguation page, this looks like a WP:PTM. Not much we can do about that. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion on the recently drafted disambiguation is ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Multiple identity (disambiguation) and target Multiple identity to Plural identity. "Multiple" is a (un)common synonym for "plural" when it comes to plural folks. I don't know of any common meaning of "multiple identity" in a mathematics sense. The other listed targets at the dabpage are a bit out there, but not out there enough for the dabpage to be useless. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards keeping the (clumsy) disambiguation I drafted, though deletion is also an acceptable alternative for me. Oppose redirecting this to a "primary topic"; there is none. Before drafting a disambiguation, I check what-links-here to see what articles would require disambiguation, and found only one: School for Scoundrels (2006 film): ...evidence that Dr. P is a fraud, who uses multiple identities and false stories to attract or distract his victims. This is what prompted me to add the partial title match " • Multiple identity documents, typically used to commit fraud" to my draft. Sorry, I know I shouldn't call other editors stupid, but I run across this sort of thing too often, so I can't help myself. An editor presumes that other editors are even more stupid than they are, and need a link to explain the meaning of "multiple identities" in the context of committing fraud, and of course, that's the only possible context that occurs to them, and they don't even bother to check the target of the WP:OVERLINK that they mindlessly created. We certainly do not want to be telling our readers that people committing fraud "report experiencing multiple distinct consciousnesses, identities, or self-states". – wbm1058 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate (strong preference) or delete. Disambiguation was my initial preference and upon reading subsequent developments this is still the best option. I understand the concern for partial title matches but this is a result of the way multiple identity(ies) is used in sentences or to name a topic where context is sufficient to define the topic. Several topics can be described this way, even though most or all of them are most commonly referred to by an entirely different name or with qualifiers ("partial title matches") or additional context. Do not keep or retarget to another topic—there is no primary topic here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

640-553 IINS

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9#640-553 IINS

Robert Raymond Fustero

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 10#Robert Raymond Fustero

BonEcho

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 10#BonEcho

H-France

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 Turned into its own article. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Undiscussed, only mentionned as an external link Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

H-FRANCE is a well established online discussion group for 4000+ scholars. I began a new article about it today --see H-FRANCE Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Is there are reason why the article is located at the title in all caps? In general, all caps are discouraged on Wikipedia, with exceptions only for things like acronyms or Unicode code points. The article uses "H-France" throughout, so I wonder if the article should be located at this redirect instead?
Also, the article doesn't provide adequate references to independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. It may be better to move the article to draft space until it's ready to be published (which can be done via WP:AFC). – Scyrme (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
My notes had it as "H-FRANCE" and I agree it should be "H-France". The U of Illinois Library is one of the two or three largest in academe and its Guide to French studies gives prominence to H-France, per footnote 3. I have added fresh material on its leadership role. per footnote 4. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Rjensen has moved their article over the redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
it is false that "(none of the references seem to be independent of the subject) note 3 is independent = the French studies unit of the main research library at U of Illinois-Urbana which gives H-France priority over all other sources in French Studies. Note 4 is independent--it quotes a major article by J B Shank, a tenured full professor of history at U of Minnesota. The original redirect stated it could be replaced by a new regular article, which is what I did.Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I did check the third reference, I may not have scrutinized it closely enough. Upon further inspection, the mention of H-France is actually just a verbatim quote of H-France's website , and reads as being promotional coverage rather than independent coverage.
The fourth reference I have yet to evaluate, I'll do that in a moment if I can pull it up through WP:TWL. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Rjensen, I've checked the fourth reference. French Historical Studies is a journal edited by the Society for French Historical Studies, which apparently H-France is affiliated with. And the mentions of H-France there read as promotional material to me.
I would like to note, however, that we're at WP:RfD, where usually we're just discussing redirects, and not article content. I'm more of a novice in evaluating sources, and I'm not sure if I'm doing it quite right. I think you would do good to get help from some more experienced users.
And on that note, I really do want to stress: the course of actions I have proposed, of having the redirect deleted would be a good thing if you wanted more help with creating the article! Anyone browsing the encyclopedia would see a red link instead of a blue link for H-France, and that encourages new editors to contribute and lets experienced editors know there's work to be done. Anyone clicking the red link would be directed to see the draft, with a big red notice at the top. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
When a leading scholar like Shank evaluates a website as especially important in shaping scholarship, wikipedia takes that as valid evidence of importance. Likewise when one of the largest academic libraries in the world singles it out as the first place for researchers to go to, that is what independent approval looks like. There is a BIG problem with a red link that some people might possibly stumble across?? That is what trivial problems look like. Rjensen (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Our inclusion criteria for articles is notability, not importance.
It's fine to have a red link in this case. Wikipedia is an incomplete project, and it probably always will be. It's good to be honest about what pages we should have articles for, but don't. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Social networking patents

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 Issues relating to social networking services#Patents. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Target section does not exist and article doesn't mention patents anywhere. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Beefaloe: That section has been moved to this article. Should the redirect be retargeted there? Jarble (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Sight on Sound

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 10#Sight on Sound

Julie McGee

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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently retargeted to Survivor: San Juan del Sur, her only Survivor season, but she was a girlfriend of John Rocker. Now torn between them two. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Survivor: San Juan del Sur contains extensive coverage of her game play and mentions that she is John's girlfriend. The alternative, John Rocker, only briefly mentions their relationship and provides no other information about Julie. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Myceteae. The current target has much more information on McGee than the proposed target, so I don't see the benefit of changing anything. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Monica Culpepper

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 9#Monica Culpepper

Merely

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 soft redirect to wikt:merely. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Immediately recreated as a redirect following deletion. None of the entries on the page are called 'merely'. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Does consensus from eight years ago (2018) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merely prevent {{R from adverb}}? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352, look at the entries on the page. They are all specific words unrelated to the adjective 'mere'. 'Merely' would never be used in relation to them. — An anonymous username, not my real name 18:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merely (which should've taken place at RfD) constituted a convincing consensus against a soft redirect to wikt:merely, a clearer consensus is needed to overturn that decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and wikt soft redirects should almost always be avoided. That being said, a search result will already display a prominent link to the Wiktionary entry along with a primary definition, which is better than what a soft redirect provides. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Information Note: For those interested, here are the deletion logs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Merely. As noted above, this was deleted per AfD in 2018, recreated a few months later (October 2018), speedy-deleted 7 March 2026, and then re-created again. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted revisions, and it looks like it was a Wiktionary redirect between 10 October 2018 and 7 March 2026. So if it took 7.5 years for someone to notice it was re-created after the AfD, I think it's fair to say that consensus had changed - if there really was much of it in the first place.
At the same time, I also noticed that the redirect was made in 2012 and in 2018 by the same editor, @Tinton5. Maybe we need to talk to them, because based on this they seem to be the most likely one to search for this term and re-create it again :) --Joy (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Corporate nationalism

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 restore article. Strong consensus that a redirect is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 07:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The target doesn't talk about Nation or Nationalism. There is a section on Fascist corporatism, but this will be an extreme, and not what the reader would expect from the redirect topic. There is a section on examples by country, but at best this could be a target for a redirect titled "Corporatism by country".

There is no content about corporates or corporatism at Nationalism. Among similar titles, there is Corporate statism which may be close, but Nation is not State. There is Business nationalism but this is US-centric. Other possible targets are Economic nationalism, Nationalization and State ownership

If there is no suitable target, Delete. Note that this used to be article that had a no-consensus outcome in a 2009 AfD, but was subsequently trimmed and finally BLAR'd in 2024. Jay 💬 14:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Corporatocracy sounds better ~2026-14405-64 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure this was a good BLAR, done by a user with only 3 prior edits and only 19 total with the comment "Contains no relevant information. Lacking citations. The little text that existed had nothing to do with corporatism." Nevertheless, the pre-BLAR article accurately describes that the term has at times been used to mean several different things, which is not an appropriate quality for an article. I've found a source that defines it synonymously with Corporate statism, but the article on that discusses (sans citation) how it is different than corporate nationalism. I also see a source that defines it as synonymous with corporatism, but means something more like Corporate capitalism or toward corporatocracy. Other sources use it to discuss corporations acting in the national interest. So, disambiguate or delete. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 22:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would expect "corporate nationalism" to have something to do with nationalism, and none of the proposed targets have much to do with it. Streded (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    Business nationalism is obviously about nationalism. I don't think it inherently has to be US-centric. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • restore ple-BLARed or at least draftify. LIrala (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore and tag as WP:BROAD seems the obvious approach here. Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore per Paradoctor. If someone thinks it's not appropriate as an article then AfD is available to them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Rachel Foulger

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 8#Rachel Foulger

Marissa Peterson

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 Survivor: Blood vs. Water. (non-admin closure) Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Really wanna retarget the page to Survivor: Blood vs. Water, whose topic is the only Survivor season that she appeared in. However, then she's also related to Gervase Peterson of Borneo. Now torn between the two. George Ho (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

Keith Tollefson

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 8#Keith Tollefson

Fan Favorite Sierra Dawn Thomas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can't tell whether the whole title is plausible. Indeed, I don't see any other redirect pages using "Fan Favorite" before the whole name. George Ho (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete as promotional. There is some chatter about this nickname online, mostly on Reddit and in other unreliable sources where people are discussing the origin of this nickname, which we don't use or describe. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not certain if I'd call this promotional, but we don't use, describe or explain the nickname and it doesn't seem to be widely used enough to make it a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Nullo cult

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

"Nullo cult" is a pejorative label seemingly used exclusively by tabloids in reference to instances of illegal castration/emasculation/genital nullification surgeries performed by non-surgeons, specifically in relation to one case in particular that was in the news a few years ago (that we don't seem to have an article for anyway). There are no uses of this term in any reliable sources, and I really don't see how this redirect is useful to anyone - no other pages link to it, it's unlikely readers will search for it, and there is no good target article that actually discusses these illegal surgeries anyway. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Someone wanting to read about the "cult" will find no coverage of this here. The term does appear in mostly sensational coverage and if anyone did search it, they are almost certainly looking for coverage of the specific news event or more background on the purported cult that was involved. Note that Nullo (body modification)Nullo (body modification) redirects to Genital nullification and nullos is bolded in the lead but this article also does not discuss the "cult" and is not a suitable target. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Myceteae - we don't have any content about what someone using this search term is almost certainly looking for. The closest I've found is the two-sentence paragraph at Eunuch#Religious castration which mentions the Heaven's Gate (religious group), but (a) that's basically just a passing mention, (b) Heaven's Gate is not the cult referenced in the news coverage, and (c) Heaven's Gate is not described anywhere I've found as a "Nullo cult" or "nullification cult", so that would not be a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Timeline of X

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Timeline of X

Fan favorite

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 07:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Current target doesn't seem suitable, IMO. "Fan favorite" is broader than that. Well, the "favourite" page doesn't mention the whole phrase. Meanwhile, I created just now "Fan favorite (wrestling)" and other similar redirects. Delete this if no suitable targets have been found so far. George Ho (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. The lead sentence of the entry delineating Face (professional wrestling) states, "In professional wrestling, a face (babyface) is a heroic, "good guy", "good-doer", or "fan favorite" wrestler, booked (scripted) by the promotion with the aim of being cheered by fans." If it is possible to amass consensus for a more likely target, I would join such a consensus. However, deleting Fan favorite → Face (professional wrestling) while leaving in its place Fan favorite (wrestling) → Face (professional wrestling), would seem contrary to various discussions under WP:Unnecessary disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    not right. the article doesn't even bother to establish this as the primary topic for the term, as it only uses that as one of the definitions, and other sites (like cambridge dictionary) follow a similar trend of defining the term more broadly as "the favorite among a fanbase". under this logic, "good guy" could have also been a redirect to it. the existence of a redirect with the disambiguator has no bearing in this case either
    also, i'm pretty sure there have overall been more fan favorite heels than faces in pro rasslin, but that's besides the point consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    Nonetheless, the "sleeveless" redirect page was deleted. Thus, I created sleeveless (song), whose disambiguation seems initially unnecessary. I just don't wanna rush resurrecting that other page. Both cases of "sleeveless" and "fan favorite" might be different, but hopefully, "fan favorite" won't end up like "sleeveless", will it? George Ho (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean delete per nominator. Searching on Wikipedia, the overwhelming majority of uses of the expression "fan favourite" and "fan favorite" have nothing to do with wrestling. Keeping the redirect is likely to result in unintended links added, for example, by the link suggestions feature of the newcomer tasks tool. Looking at "what links here", there are already a couple of unintended links; eg. Erik Campbell (Final Destination), Morph (X-Men: The Animated Series). There aren't that many total uses (fewer than 50 in article space), but if this redirect is kept the number of uses is likely to grow and the number of mistaken uses with it.
    I don't agree that Fan favourite (wrestling) falls under unnecessary disambiguation. Though Fan favorite is unlikely to become an article, the disambiguation is helpful because the primary use of the term is overwhelmingly unrelated to wrestling and requiring disambiguation discourages unintended links.
    If a redirect at Fan favorite is desirable, the natural target would be to somewhere like Fandom, which mentions favorite characters and favorite artists. An explicit use of "fan favorite" could be added to that article (with a visible anchor if needed) to provide a mention. – Scyrme (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Fandom does indeed seem to be a reasonable target for Fan favorite as well as for Fan favourite, which is currently a redlink. However, if Fan favourite were to remain as a redlink and Fan favorite were to be deleted and thus return to being a redlink, while Fan favorite (wrestling) and Fan favourite (wrestling) were to remain as redirects, then the parenthetical qualifier "(wrestling)" would seem to fall under WP:MALPLACED. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
WP:MALPLACED would apply if Fan favorite (wrestling) were a disambiguation page rather than a redirect to an article. If it were a disambiguation, WP:MALPLACED explains that the disambiguation page should be moved to the title without a parenthetical (assuming that there's no primary topic; if there's a primary topic, then this doesn't apply). – Scyrme (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete in absence of enough fitting targets for a dab per the stuff above. maybe a little obviously, this means that if enough fitting targets are found (also considering the stuff above, i'd put that at 1.5), i will instead support a dab consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I'd like to remind everyone of one of my favorite Wikipedia facts, that professional wrestling is a community designated contentious topic.
Looking at the backlinks tells me that "fan favorite" is actually a somewhat common term for a face in professional wrestling articles, but it's also erroneously used in some other sorts of articles. Scyrme's intentionally misdisambiguated redirect is a good solution for that situation. Delete per nom unless a more suitable target is found. I might also be fine with retargeting to Fandom. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a generic term that is used in countless entertainment, sports, and other contexts. It's unlikely that an encyclopedia article can be written about this so I would probably remove the incoming links when this is deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    No need to remove the links from wrestler-related articles. I just now added "(wrestling)" instead. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    👍🏾 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can suggest a better target. The current target can easily be as implying that this is a wrestling-specific or wrestling-dominant term, when it's nowhere close to that. Better to redlink than to target its meaning in one very specific field. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of a good target. On the first two pages of internal search results in the article space the term is used to refer to sportspeople (soccer, baseball, tennis, golf and others), reality TV contestants, novels, songs, award categories in multiple fields (adult entertainment, video games, Indian television, films), a New York Giants fan and beauty pageant contestants as well as professional wresting. Unsurprisingly there is no content at Wiktionary - as a simple sum of parts with no idiomatic meaning it would not meet that project's criteria for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Hatnote group redirects

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 Template:Hatgrp and delete Template:Hg. I'll note here that BDD deleted the rest of the redirects with the relist on 1 April 2026. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

A number of redirects to {{hatnote group}} have recently been created, and it seems unproductive to me, because a whole pile of them have been created quite recently and aren't actually in use:

Redirect use overview
RedirectUse countCreatorCreation date
Template:Hatnote shell9EchidnaLives2022-11-21
Template:Hatnote holder1EchidnaLives2022-11-21
Template:Hatgrp126CrafterNova2023-05-21
Template:Multihat2Remsense2025-07-27
Template:Hatnotegroup0ZNático2026-02-09
Template:Hatgroup0ZNático2026-02-13
Template:Grouphat0ZNático2026-02-13
Template:Htgrp5Abesca2026-02-16
Template:Hatgp0Abesca2026-03-13
Template:Htgp3Abesca2026-02-16
Template:Hngp0Abesca2026-03-13
Template:Hgp0Abesca2026-03-13
Template:Hng0Abesca2026-03-13
Template:Htg0Abesca2026-03-13
Template:Hg1Abesca2026-03-13
Template:HG0Abesca2026-03-13

I'm not entirely opposed to template redirects existing, but I'm not fond of opaque names, and this set of frequently-opaque names is clearly bigger than it needs to be, especially concerning the March 13 additions, which seem quite needless to me (no offense, Abesca). While redirects are cheap, they do incur a small amount of maintenance load, and additionally for template redirects there's both some cognitive load for editors to remember template names and a risk of vandalism on redirects that are both unprotected and widely-used.

I think that at least the redirects with very few links should probably be deleted and any uses retargeted to the main template. I included "Hatgrp" despite its 126 uses for the sake of a complete list for discussion; I imagine that editors will prefer to keep that one, at least. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: I have tagged and added Template:Htgp, which was the only redirect to Template:Hatnote group that wasn't added at the time of nomination. I see no reason why this redirect should be excluded from the nomination. Mathguy2718 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you; I meant to include it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
There needs to be a shorter shortcut than hatgrp. grp is a weird way to abbreviate group, especially considering the prefix hat makes it unambiguous/precise. I'm not opposed of deleting all the others if we can decide one that isn't harder to remember. However many of these are also plausible, but since template redirects have a different balance of costiness, I agree they can go. Abesca (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Why is "grp" a weird way to abbreviate "group"? It's just "group" without the vowels. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep hatgrp, delete others. Hatgrp is still pretty extensively used and isn't that opaque   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Jalapeño. 126 is quite a few, and while this template is very common, I only just recently found a page with a redirect to it (funnily enough, not Hatgrp). I also agree that "hatgrp" is quite a bit less opaque than the others, though maybe that's just the C programmer in me talking. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Same here. Randomly stumbled upon an article which used the hatgrp redirect (Sign o' the Times - if that matters), so removing it and replacing it with the normal link would be quite a task and at this point it would just be better to leave that as a redirect as it's pretty clear what it's for   Jalapeño   (u t g) 12:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:Hatgrp. Delete all others. 'grp' is a logical shortening of 'group' and has the greatest usage by far. Some of these are about as long as the full name for the template and the shorter ones are increasingly opaque and it's not clear they will actually help editors remember their meaning. If deleted, any that have a handful of uses should of course be reviewed and any articles should be updated to use {{Hatnote group}} or the 'approved' shortcut {{Hatgrp}}. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:Hg. Delete all others. This is a frequently used template and a concise abbreviation (hg) would be nice. Hatgrp is at the point where changing it to hg is difficult, but there are bots and scripts for exactly this reason. Generally the listed redirects do not seem to offer anything over hg in terms of concision or clarity. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all including Hatgrp. Shorter names are mainly useful if the same template is used many times in an article but this is only used once and the full name is short compared to the parameters it gets. Allowing shorter and alternative names may help a little for some editors adding it but it hurts other editors of the page and this is placed at the top among the first things many editors see. hatgrp is not easily guessed and probably only has many uses because it has been shown at top of the documentation since 2023. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all after replacing with the correct name. Even 126 uses is not many out compared to the 1830 transclusions for this template. No need for these template shortcuts. It might save a second of typing, but it wastes other editors' time needing to investigate what the template does. Mclay1 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete templates with 0 uses, and probably most others. I'd even be open to deleting all of them per the suggestion from @PrimeHunter:. I think keeping either {{hatgrp}}, {{hg}}, or both makes sense, because they're easy to remember shortcuts, but I'm not strongly attached to either and would be fine to see them go if that's where the discussion lands. -- - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 18:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment (as nominator): I recommend, to refocus discussion, a partial closure of this RfD that would snowball-delete all of the redirects except "hg" and "hatgrp" and relist just those two. If it comes down to keeping exactly one shortcut, I would prefer keeping "hg" over "hatgrp", but I nonetheless endorse the view that saving a few characters per article isn't worth the effort. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all except hatgrp. Hatgrp is a clear shortcut, but hg is too vague — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unusual, but I'm going to indeed follow through on the nominator's suggestion from 25 March and relist this discussion, pared down to just Template:Hatgrp and Template:Hg while calling consensus to delete the rest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep {{hg}} and {{hatgrp}}. As long as "hg" isn't ambiguous with another template, I don't see the problem. We have many similar shortcuts for templates like it. {{cn}}, {{tl}}, {{tq}}. Seems fine to me. "hatgrp" also seems like a reasonable shortcut for "hatnote group", and keeping it would save on having to replace its uses. – Scyrme (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
    Per Mathguy2718, {{hg}} has a lot of potential ambiguity so I now favour delete to avoid confusion. – Scyrme (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep {{hatgrp}} as unambiguous and relatively commonly used. Delete {{hg}} as essentially unused and very ambiguous. There are so many templates that could use the shortcut hg, including:
Possible expansions of {{hg}}

Lowercase:

  1. Template:Human genetics
  2. Template:Human geography
  3. Template:Harmonix games
  4. Template:Hatnote group
  5. Template:Hand games
  6. Template:Health governance
  7. Template:Hokkien grammar
  8. Template:Hindustani gharanas
  9. Template:Hand grenades

Uppercase:

  1. Template:Hama Governorate
  2. Template:Hadhramaut Governorate
  3. Template:Homs Governorate
  4. Template:Hebron Governorate
  5. Template:Hoodoo Gurus
  6. Template:Hajjah Governorate
  7. Template:Huddersfield Giants
  8. Template:Harry Garson
  9. Template:Hauraki Gulf
  10. Template:Helen Garner
  11. Template:Hungarian Governments
  12. Template:Haemimont Games
  13. Template:Heinosuke Gosho
  14. Template:Hoot Gibson
  15. Template:Horace Greeley
  16. Template:Heywood Gould
  17. Template:Hedda Gabler
  18. Template:Home Grown
  19. Template:Hideo Gosha
  20. Template:Hugh Gaitskell
  21. Template:Holocaust Germany
  22. Template:Halal Gang
  23. Template:Henryk Górecki
  24. Template:Henryk Górecki
  25. Template:Hostyle Gospel
  26. Template:Hanako Games
  27. Template:Heaven's Gate
  28. Template:Holy Grail
  29. Template:Hello Games
  30. Template:Hitotsubashi Group
  31. Template:Hrafn Gunnlaugsson
  32. Template:Hugo Gélin
  33. Template:Halder Gomes
  34. Template:Harjant Gill
  35. Template:Haile Gerima
  36. Template:Hal Galper
  37. Template:Heinz Guderian
  38. Template:Hildur Guðnadóttir
  39. Template:Henry Grimes
  40. Template:Homestead Grays
  41. Template:Harrisburg Giants
  42. Template:Helen Grime
  43. Template:Helvetic Guards
  44. Template:Howe Gelb

Redirects:

  1. Template:HSBC Group → Template:HSBC
  2. Template:Hunger Games → Template:The Hunger Games
  3. Template:Harper Government → Template:Stephen Harper
  4. Template:Hanjin Group → Template:Hanjin
Also, unlike many other two-letter template shortcuts, this isn't often used; there is currently only one use, which can easily be changed. Ambiguity is not the only reason to delete a template redirect, though. Using shortcuts that aren't urgently needed is discouraged since these redirects usually have no or little protection if rarely used compared to the main template. I feel like for an ambiguous two-letter shortcut to only a semi-protected template, I would wait until the main template gets enough uses to become template-protected (5000+ uses) to consider recreation of the shortcut (noting that a few of the examples I gave above have almost a hundred uses). This template is simply a small visual change anyway, so if the few seconds to type the template don't seem worth it, you might as well not use the template at all, since that would be less risky than using an unreliable template redirect. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:Hg and keep Template:Hatgrp per my earlier !vote and per Mathguy2718's findings of ambiguity with 'Hg'. (Note: I think it would have been cleaner to close this as 'no consensus' on the remaining two, with no prejudice against re-nominating them, rather than relist a long thread where most of the entries are red links.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
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).

Trials of the Nazis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 12#Trials of the Nazis

America United

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 Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome per WP:BARTENDER. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I presumed this was the name of a team, but it isn't mentioned at the target and wasn't when the redirect was created either. Search results are all over the shop, with a couple of results related to Joe Biden's inauguration as president being the most prominent but an extremely long way from being primary, most hits were collocations of things like "America-United Kingdom relations". The only football-related result on the first three pages was an academy for young players in New Jersey. Searching for "America United" soccer did find a website about a football team with this name that play (or played, the website hasn't been updated since circa 2013) in Providence, Rhode Island, a facebook page that claimed to be an "amateur sports team" but which mainly posted memes about the World Cup in Qatar and a youth team in Quincy, Massachusetts called "America FC United" but then degenerated into even less relevant results. Either delete or retarget to the dab at American Union if that is expanded to cover similar terms (c.f. #United Americas). Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Retarget: per my rationale for United Americas. Plausible typo. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 04:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't support this (retargetting to the United States) for the same reasons I disagree with it for #Americas United. This is not a common way of referring to the country in any language it has affinity to, and pretty much none of the results in my searches used this term to mean the USA. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nom - this is a misleading target and do not see any other suitable target. Search results do not show any notable uses. Asteramellus (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The only semi-plausible target I can think of is Americans United, but, similar to the other potential targets mentioned above, it differs too much from the redirect to be an unambiguous misspelling. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Toronto-based team, which appears to have had a 3-year run, from 1988–1990: 1991 National Soccer League season – America United and Oshawa Italia were the other two clubs that were disbanded.
  • Keep per Wbm1058. GiantSnowman 19:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The above checks out (they played at Lamport Stadium and apparently had to forfeit a match in 1989 because the stadium was already in use). They should be added to the list but no article is merited. Keep. Great work by Wbm1058. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom and other 'delete' arguments. The obscure, short-lived Canadian soccer team is not the primary topic. It's also not mentioned at the target. Sending readers there would certainly cause WP:RSURPRISE. It has brief mentions on three different pages, none of which are suitable targets. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    or Retarget to Inauguration of Joe Biden. See my replies to Nfitz below. In the real world, I think there is no primary topic since "America United" is the name or part of the name of many unrelated topics. But on en-wiki, where we have only identified two topics with this name that we cover, Inauguration of Joe Biden is the primary topic and likely the only notable one. "America United" was one of the inauguration's themes. This is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead and several other places in the article, including two section headings, Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome and Inauguration of Joe Biden#Post-inaugural events: "America United". Consider adding a hatnote pointing to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is the target for Americans UnitedAmericans United. Do not add a hatnote to Canadian National Soccer League since the defunct, non-notable team isn't mentioned there and likely doesn't warrant a mention. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no idea what's wrong with this redirect. Such redirects for non-notable teams in this league are as common as anything. I have no idea why there's discussion of foreign politics here - what does that have to do with a team name. I see no other target - but the solution is disambiguation if there were other teams with name. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
    Inauguration of Joe Biden#America United inaugural welcome is another plausible target. This seems far more notable although I agree with the nom's assessment that there is no primary topic here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Partially struck for clarity, to align with subsequent statements I made in this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    Barely plausible maybe. I'd think people looking for an airline's name they don't quite remember would be more likely. Also that seems to be fake news ... American Disunited perhaps (insert smiley here) Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
    Biden's inauguration is the top hit when I Google "America United" and more than half the links on the first page of DuckDuckGo refer to this. Inauguration of Joe Biden gets nearly 12x as much traffic as Canadian National Soccer League. I don't know how many readers remember the inauguration's theme but it's likely far more than remember the Canadian soccer team whose three-year run ended nearly 40 years ago. In fact, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Inauguration of Joe Biden is the primary topic, if we take the approach of ignoring all the America Uniteds that aren't covered on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Google searches are individualized, @Myceteae, based on usage and location. My first hit for "America United" is the actual redirect. Then there's the AI, which is all about American and United Airlines (to my absolute shock - I wasn't completely joking!). Then there's America United - some kind of country from some sci-fi fiction. Then comes the soccer team, with results from the 2025 season - though the links not working right now (works now). Then a Reddit discussion about uniting North America. An then 6th is a YouTube video about the Biden rally. It's similar in incognito mode leaving out the sci-fi and Reddit discussions. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Your link to the soccer team refers to America FC United aka America FC aka America United FC, which per their website is a youth soccer club/training program. I don't see that it has any relationship to the defunct team in the defunct Canadian National Soccer League. I remain at 'delete or retarget' to Inauguration of Joe Biden, a popular page that contains the only detailed description of any America United on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    No, that's something else, it seems to be a foreign soccer academy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The main page of the site I pointed clearly shows their current league is a Toronto Men's amateur league, with images on the webpage (like ) showing men with beards!. What link in my post did you click on to get to the foreign academy, @Myceteae? Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Nfitz, I stand corrected. The logos are quite similar, hence my confusion. Still, the present-day amateur soccer club in the Toronto Services Soccer League is not the same as the defunct team in the defunct Canadian National Soccer League, as far as I can tell. These findings don't support keeping the redirect. If anything, this is likely to cause further confusion for the occasional reader searching for one of the several non-notable soccer teams with this name. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    What suggests it's a different team? For all intents and purposes, the successor to the league is the Ontario Soccer League which has teams (like Toronto Celtic FC) that have played in both the OSL and TSSL in the 2010s. (the successor was actually the Canadian Soccer League but it devolved significantly in the 2000s, and was desanctioned by Ontario Soccer Association. TSSL is, of course, sanctioned, hence their participation in the highest level of amateur soccer in the province. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Is it your impression that they went pro for three years and then dropped down to an amateur league? This is speculation/WP:OR, however reasonable. And I still find the Biden target stronger, regardless. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    What's weird about going pro and dropping down to an amateur league? Plenty of UK teams have been relegated from professional to amateur. Though by "pro", it's semi-professional, where not all (or often most) players are even paid! Many sporting clubs have teams at different levels and leagues, at the famour Serbian White Eagles FC that we've all heard of - whose top team is now participating in the non-official Canadian Soccer League along with 3 other Serbian teams. And then there's Glossop North End A.F.C., once playing in the top English league - now playing down in the bottom of the table of 9th tier of soccer, risking relegation to an amateur league! Still, I'm pointing out the poor research - I'm bot sure why you are pointing to current foreign teams and such, but ignore the obvious. The redirect remains obvious; isn't there a redirect for many of the teams in the league from that era? Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I forgot the best example, @Myceteae - Toronto Croatia, who were the top North American team in 1976 when the beat the Minnesota Kicks in the Soccer Bowl '76 after beating the Tampa Bay Rowdies in the semifinal, and by the 2010s their top team was in a pay-to-play developmental league. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I never said it was weird, I even acknowledged that this was reasonable. But speculation and inferences don't cut it on Wikipedia. And, again, this still doesn't trump (no pun intended) Biden, in my view. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Which goes back to the 1980s iteration having played in the league that was primary national soccer league for most of last century. Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Digging deeper, @Myceteae from the teams 2022 Facebook page, the current iteration played in both the TSSL and the NYSL, along with the 2022 Ontario Cup - the oldest soccer competition in North America. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Unless they played in the Canadian National Soccer League, I don't see how that supports this redirect. There have apparently been multiple soccer teams named "America United" or with similar names. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    You think playing in a city league might be worthy of a redirect, but playing in the number two national league (which was the number one league before and after the brief 1987 to 1992 CSL doesn't? That's RECENTISM. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think either of them deserve a redirect! I've been quite consistent about that. All other inquiries were just trying to understand your reasoning. I appreciate the explanations. They haven't swayed me. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I guess we are evenly non-swayed then! Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment digging deeper, User:Thryduulf, you searched for "America United" soccer but when I search (Google searches being individualized based on location and personal data) "america united" toronto soccer my first hit is the team's Facebook page (www.facebook.com/Americaunitedcanadafc/). Then I get the league's page with the 2025 results. All the links are about the team, until I get to the 8th, about the 2026 World Cup. It wasn't mentioned in the list of former teams on the sub-page, however it is listed in four of the subpages, and I've now placed it, at the top of the list. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with Myceteae that if there is a primary topic for the term "America United" it is Joe Biden's speach. There is no content on en.wp about any of the soccer teams (whether based in Toronto or elsewhere) that have been named (similarly to) "America United". Regardless of how notable or not any of them are, unless and until we have content about them then a redirect is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the new potential target unearthed, Inauguration of Joe Biden. Note that this football team is now mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 01:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
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).