Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 10

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

June 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2026.

Mississippian period (archaeological)

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) Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect created because of move request that violated WP:NCDAB. Unlikely to ever be used. — hike395 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • This redirect was not created for whatever reasons you stated because I created it. There was an article that was moved and when this happened, quite a few broken redirects were created (see this page]). We generally delete broken redirects but when there are quite a few, there is another response which is to create a temporary redirect from the previous page title to the new one. It takes a couple of days but Wikipedia bots will change the redirects to avoid having a double redirect and update them.
You can also correct all of these redirects yourself but we generally let the bots handle this work. I was going to delete this redirect once it was clear the bot's work was done but if you would like to step up and fix them all yourself, that would be a quicker solution. But there is my explanation for why this redirect was created. It was meant to be temporary but if you would like to discuss it that's fine with me. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@Liz: Sorry I wasn't clear --- The original page move to Mississippian period (archaeological)Mississippian period (archaeological) violated WP:NCDAB. I was in the middle of fixing the redirects, but got called away. All the redirects are now fixed. Given that the redirect was meant to be temporary, can we delete it now? — hike395 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The normal method would be to leave the redirect at the old title, when moving articles like this. That avoids leaving broken redirects in place. Why did you decide to suppress the redirect in this case? It doesn't seem to be causing any harm — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The move was proposed by a new editor with little experience, so they inadvertently violated WP:NCDAB by using an adjective instead of a noun for the disambiguator. I could have left the redirect and asked to have it deleted here (because it's unlikely to ever be useful), but I thought I could save everyone the trouble and quickly manually fix the other redirects that point to Mississippian period (archaeological)Mississippian period (archaeological). Unfortunately, I had to attend to something urgent IRL, and so was unable to finish the cleanup before AnomieBOT flagged the other redirects. Liz correctly recreated the redirect. So here we are at RfD: I ended up wasting other editors' time after all. I think in the future I will leave the base redirect and come to RfD instead of relying on rushing to fix the broken double redirects before AnomieBOT finds them.
Above, Liz was saying that Mississippian period (archaeological)Mississippian period (archaeological) was meant to be temporary. I manually fixed all redirects to Mississippian period (archaeological)Mississippian period (archaeological). Given that, can we delete Mississippian period (archaeological)Mississippian period (archaeological)? — hike395 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this can't be kept as a redirect, policy- or procedure-wise. It's a perfectly fine disambiguator. Even if the creator intended for it to be temporary, this seems like a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per others above. Harmless and plausible. CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 18 June 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).

Mississippian period (North America)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Mississippian period (North America)

It's Radical.

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 💬 04:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't find anything that connects this term to the target. It seems to be connected primarily to a quote in a Spongebob Squarepants episode, but not notable enough to redirect there. Unclear why the punctuation is needed, too. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was said in SpongeBob, and here's the link to the official website for Mighty Cuphead Adventure, where you can clearly see the first thing on the website is that quote: https://mightycuphead.com ReelCosmix (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@CountryANDWestern ReelCosmix (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
A use on the game's website doesn't mean it is significantly associated with the game, though. I don't see anything on Google for "It's radical" plus "Mighty cup" suggesting it's not a well known phrase in association with the game. CountryANDWestern (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete as vague. not strongly enough associated with spingebill or gobletcranium to warrant a redirect to either, and without those, it's just a sentence. also, there are different definitions of "radical" that this could refer to, but that's not funny enough to note consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is too vague to be useful. In my search results, the most prominent single usage is some sort of soda/energy drink advert meme that may or may not be related somehow to Spongebob Squarepants, but that's only because there are so many other different uses - on the first three pages they included Buddhism, a Ugandan city "built on solar power and shea butter", abstinence from alcohol, Pentecostal Christianity, antioxidants, a Pembrokeshire school's "well-being economy" philosophy and many others. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. per estabolished consensus and the target doesn't mention the term and has its self been nominated for merging. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The phrase doesn't appear in the target article, the connection is tenuous at best (appearing on a website homepage is not strong association), and the target itself is under a merge nomination. Pascuet (talk) 04:22, 14 June 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).

Partial list

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Partial list

SonntagsZeitung

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#SonntagsZeitung

Ich Bin Ein Heidelberger

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 💬 04:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. Apparently the character said this phrase and it's been used in brainrot memes, but that meme is not mentioned in this article, and I don't see significant coverage of said meme to justify it going into the article about the character. It also wouldn't make sense as a redirect to the article summary on the show's episode page as there's no mention there either. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:21, 10 June 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).

Fridgy (Kirby)

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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 10 June 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).

Winter Bug

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Winter Bug

Aye aye ayee

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 Aye aye ayee. There was consensus that Aye aye aye should be disambiguated. One of the suggestions was to target the existing Ay Ay Ay, hence I'm targeting there. If the suggested Aye Aye Aye is created, this discussion may be revisited. Jay 08:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article. Not clearly connected to the target from the context. Just searching for this phrase on Google doesn't turn up the target in the first couple pages. Searching for the phrase with the target's name does show that it's a known phrase from one of his songs, but doesn't seem substantial enough to redirect this phrase to him. THere's no mention of it in the song's article either, so wouldn't make sense to make that the target either. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:27, 10 June 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).

Cat (Minecraft)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Cat (Minecraft)

You ever been to Bosnia

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 💬 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. The phrase does not appear in the target, and landing on a season episode list section provides no useful context for anyone searching this term.Pascuet (talk) 04:24, 14 June 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).

Russian invasion of Crimea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 21#Russian invasion of Crimea

Neo-Libertarian Falangism

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Creator supports deletion below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This was redirecting to a section of an article that was either unsourced or poorly sourced to a joke youtube video, but that section has since been removed for obvious reasons. This term appears to have been made up by a social media account as a joke and doesn't have any basis in reliable sources (see zero results on Google Scholar) Given the section targetted by the redirect no longer exists, there is little value in this redirecting to an article that does not mention the concept. As the concept has no substantial depth or significant coverage, it's also unlikely that anybody will be actively searching for it on Wikipedia. As such, I'm nominating this redirect for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad, support. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 09:55, 10 June 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).

Anoredhel

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article and I couldn't find a suitable retarget. Name of a race in the novels and I don't think it's notable to be added to the article. Suonii180 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 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).

Credit cards and cash

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 💬 04:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not at target. WP:XY redirect. Payment#Types and methods of payment is a possible redirect target, but I think it's a stretch. ~ A412 talk! 06:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: "Credit cards and cash" is a quote from Chihiro's father in the English dub of Spirited away- for some reason there is no section for him. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. A fairly obscure quote with significant potential for ambiguity, and doesn't seem like a likely search term. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete an obscure quite from the dub of a movie, extremely unlikely to be a search term for people looking for that film Oblivy (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
What does 'dunb' mean, is that a typo In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Dub, the same word as you used above. The typo is fixed, thanks Oblivy (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete Nothing but commercial clickbait for financial products in search results, fails WP:XY on the financial face. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 15 June 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).

Tramsheds

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. Whether Tramshed should be moved can be resolved with a requested move. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the current target still appropriate in light of the failed requested move at Talk:Rozelle Tram Depot? feminist🩸 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Tramsheds" is the current, widely used name for the retail complex at Rozelle Tram Depot, making it a useful redirect per WP:R#KEEP. The failed requested move established that Rozelle Tram Depot is the preferred article title, but that outcome actually reinforces the value of this redirect: readers searching the modern name should still find the article. Pascuet (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. This will make the current name of the topic harder to find, I wasn't convinced that this is a very WP:COMMONNAME but I spoke in that requested move in favour of retaining this redirect. pageviews.wmcloud.org shows that this redirect page does get a small but steady view count so it is evidently useful for some people, point three and five of WP:R#KEEP supports keeping this redirect when some views are registered and when this is an officially used alternate name. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the Tramshed dab page, as singular and plural could both refer colloquially to just about any tram depot worldwide. The current target, Rozelle Tram Depot, is already linked from there. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current target is by far the primary topic for the plural, even when I'm searching from the UK. There is already a hatnote to the dab page for those looking for the generic concept or any of the topics referred to in the singular. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it's the only plural item on the disambiguation page. We should also consider moving Tramshed to Tramshed (disambiguation)Tramshed (disambiguation) and pointing the base title to train shed, since it's already identified as the page's primary topic. - Eureka Lott 16:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    A tramshed and a train shed are very different buildings, the former is a depot building where trams are stored and/or maintained the latter is a roof over railway station tracks and platforms. The Tramshed disambiguation page actually links to category:Tram depots as the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    The more I look into it the more of a mess this area is, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Depots and sheds. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 10 June 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).

Unrelated Belgian techno anthem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Unrelated Belgian techno anthem

Allexis Ferrell

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Low-profile individual not mentioned in target except in the citations. I don't think this is useful for navigation but there are also some WP:BLPCRIME concerns, even though she was sentenced. Rusalkii (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - Very much tangential to the subject and no longer mentioned. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The subject is not mentioned in the article text itself, only in citations, which means the redirect provides no navigational value. More importantly, WP:BLPCRIME strongly weighs against a named redirect for a private individual to a crime-related article, even post-sentencing. No encyclopedic purpose is served here. Pascuet (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm the creator of the redirect, and I made it because she's the individual caught eating a cat in Canton, Ohio. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a good idea to have a person's name redirect to a controversy article they aren't mentioned in. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I think someone removed her name from the article, so it's unfair to delete the redirect. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
I can't find any point in the past in which she was mentioned in the article, nor do I think she should be mentioned in it. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
A mention was added to the article body in 2024. (That doesn't mean its removal was improper or that we should retain this redirect, of course.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the diff. My !vote still stands though. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
It was removed by Rhododendrites, a participant in this discussion. The removal was fine in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME. It is only fair to delete the redirect. Jay 💬 03:25, 17 June 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).

Dr. Wrecker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 27#Dr. Wrecker

Thias

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 17#Thias

List of weekly newspapers in the United States

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The page in question excludes weekly newspapers entirely and only discusses dailies. This used to be a page, but was redirected without merging. Very misleading redirect target as 0 information about weekly newspapers is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Then revert the unexplained BLAR. What else is there to do? J947 ‡ edits 01:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    I assumed it would be contested. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    You are contesting the decision to redirect by saying it's a bad redirect. It's pretty uncontroversial that that is true, so RfD is unnecessary. Revert the BLAR, with the option to take it to AfD where contested BLARs should be discussed. J947 ‡ edits 08:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Well, I also wouldn't oppose us deleting the redirect, as the target is misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • don't restore that unholy mess if it's just to take to afd. as usual, that's just going to be a waste of time
outside of the same five songs on the radio station, here's a short list of the issues it had
  • indiscriminate listing: some newspapers don't have articles. of those, some have been deleted (usually as a7) and some have never existed. of the ones that have articles, roughly 40% of them are a7s or rfds waiting to happen. it would need a lot of fat-trimming to be even remotely presentable
  • boring sourcing issues: yay, primary sources all around...
  • "how did this even happen?" sourcing issues: some of the already-not-very-useful sources have... strange issues. as an example, every source in the illinois section is either broken or from a tangentially related newspaper, and the link to "the citizen" in the maine section instead lints to current publishing, which has no mention of that name. some are also treated as external links
  • inconsistency: the nom's initial rationale is really funny, in that it's wrong by a technicality. the article is definitely at the wrong title, as it seems to focus on dailies, but it does include weekly newspapers... so long as they have "daily" in the name, or whoever was adding them didn't notice it, or erroneously thought that a list of weekly newspapers would focus on weeklies. except even that inconsistent inconsistency is inconsistent in its inconsistency, as the decision that some of them are not daily seems to be original research, and is followed by including them anyway, so what's going on here!?
  • formatting issues: each section has its own formatting styles (i.e. michigan lists locations for the newspapers, but mississipi doesn't), and some double-dip in them (i.e. louisiana). would be easy to fix on a list that doesn't have verification and notability issues up the ass
  • delaware stinks bleeh >:p (and has nothing i guess)
  • montana stinks bleeh >:p (and has nothing i guess)
  • no distinction in activity: while it seems to be trying to focus on active newspapers, some just aren't, and seem to have been added after going inactive. ideally, this distinction shouldn't exist in the first place
  • some of those aren't even newspapers!!: the gering citizen in the nebraska section is a blog, for instance, and it's one of the tamer cases
all of those problems (and some more that aren't worth bringing up right now) should make it weird that this isn't a vote to delete or to not restore at all, just to not restore if it's just to delete elsewhere, as a decision that a redirect can be deleted and that its pre-blar content was le bad can be made here. i do think that if this list were to exist, it would be a good idea to start from scratch or go from what can be found from the list of newspapers in the united states, but as far as things go, the closest i can give to a non-nuke vote is
  • weak retarget to the list of newspapers in the united states to avoid a third copy of this mess (oh yeah, the list of daily newspapers in the united states is a blar from similarly bad content) consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's not indiscriminate to list all classes of a thing even if every individual entry is not notable, if the class is notable, per WP:NLIST. Also most historical newspapers are quite notable; even if they weren't it has value to list them.
    That the list is badly formatted would be a reason to delete the target as well, because it's also extremely bad. As you said for this redirect, largely uncited outside of circulation (and who is to say there are not papers with higher circulations missing), and why are we combining a list of the highest circulation newspapers and the oldest ones, formatted totally differently, and nothing else? Do no other newspapers register in importance? Should we delete this article too, being an infernal mess as well?
    They all seem to be newspapers. The Gering Citizen is a newspaper , for just one I checked. I think all of these issues are resolvable; I also wouldn't oppose the title being deleted as it is misleading as the page does not discuss weekly papers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    maybe the first one would've been worded better as "indiscriminate to the point of listcruft"? consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert per above. Consarn makes a case why this doesn't need to be a separate article, but those discussions are still more appropriate for AfD rather than RfD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    i actually think it being a separate list would be le good, and i wouldn't mind the list of dailies being its own list either... just not in the states they were in, dios mio
    whether this would mean draftifying would also be in the table is probably a topic for when (and if) this discussion goes on for a little longer, but as far as this goes, the argument for restoring for afd here is procedure-shaped vibes, so nah consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 16:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Revert. Merging the list of weekly papers might be appropriate, but a WP:BLAR with no merger attempt is destructive. A merger discussion can be held separately. - Eureka Lott 16:50, 10 June 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).