Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 28

May 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2026.

Kank

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 Kank australis. Consensus is that the dinosaur is the primary topic. Whether the dinosaur belongs at this title or at Kank australis can be determined at WP:RM and doesn't require deleting the redirect first. Rusalkii (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Kank → New Hampshire Route 112 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete redirect per reasons #8 and #10. Redirect title not discussed at the target page, is not currently in (relevant) use, and appears to have not been used on Wikipedia since its creation in 2011. Page can instead be used for Kank (dinosaur), a recently-named dinosaur genus (see here). -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I've just added a sourced mention to the article that it is also known as "The Kank" (The Kank also redirects there and but as it doesn't seem to be a plausible search term for the dinosaur I've not bundled it here). If we had content about the dinosaur then this would be a straightforward retarget to that article and add a hatnote to the road. However we don't have (that I've found) more than a list entry at 2026 in archosaur paleontology#Non-avian dinosaurs and it's a plausible search term for both, so I'm unsure. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Support we don't have (that I've found) more than a list entry at 2026 in archosaur paleontology#Non-avian dinosaurs the dinosaur has only just been named and SlvrHwk and others are probably waiting for this rfd to close before creating the article on the new genus. Also would be a straightfoward retarget why? if the dinosaur is the primary topic then there is no need to retarget the redirect as disambiguation should be used only when needed, if the dinosaur is the primary topic then the dinosaurs article title should just be Kank with no disambiguator needed. Looking at Page views stats over the past 30 days it was looked at a total of 12 times prior to the dinosaurs naming it has spiked to 42 in just 1 day and from a search it appears Kank isn't used at all for the road while The Kank is used as a nickname, the page appears to have been redirected based on redirecting to the title with the definitive redirecting to the roads actual name to avoid double redirects, now Kank is used for something else that redirect is not valid. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
To be honest, this discussion probably didn't even need to be opened, someone could have WP:BEBOLD and just removed the redirect and created an article on the dinosaur. But now its open people are probably waiting this rfd out. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I just draftified new article someone created: Draft:Kank (dinosaur) Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Replace redirect by article on the dinosaur - if necessary a hatnote can be placed to redirect towards the road, but the dinosaur is the primary topic given the lack of reliable sourcing for the nickname/alternative name of the road. Shazback (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, with Kank (dinosaur) being moved to Kank. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to the newly created Kank australis. Start an WP:RM for deciding whether the title should change to Kank. Jay 💬 19:45, 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).

Fraternal service organization

The result of the discussion was retarget to Service fraternities and sororities. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Fraternal service organizationFraternal service organization → Fraternity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fraternal service organisationFraternal service organisation → Service fraternities and sororities (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

They should both point to the same target. Jay 💬 19:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget "Fraternal service organization" to "Service fraternities and sororities" and keep the latter. I agree they should both point to the same thing, and pointing them to "Service fraternities and sororities" makes more sense to me. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with OneReaction Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What about the redirect Fraternal and service organisations? Would the "and" change the meaning? In any case though, for the two redirects that only differ in regional spelling, I support retargeting to Service fraternities and sororities due to more mentions of the word "service". Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 20 § Fraternal and service organizations which was closed as Delete only yesterday. I missed Fraternal and service organisations while suggesting the bundling. It could be deleted as a WP:G6 if not for the pre-BLAR history. Jay 💬 17:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
It might help to look at where these redirects are used. The first of them, Fraternal service organization, is used to describe the Native Sons of the Golden West, the Knights of Peter Claver (which is also described as a fraternal service order, which would be a redlink were it not piped to Fraternal order) and the Knights of Columbus. The second redirect (alternative spelling) is not referenced in any articles. And Service fraternities and sororities starts by defining such an organisation as a fraternal public service organization, which also would be a redlink were it not piped to Fraternal and Service Organizations, which is in fact a redlink (though its near-equivalent Fraternal and service organisations is in fact an redirect to Fraternity, as noted above). This is quite a tangle. Based on the current usage of the frst redirect under discussion, I agree that a better target for both of them would be Service fraternities and sororities (which needs to be edited to remove the piped redlink fraternal public service organization). And probably Fraternal service order should become a redirect to Service fraternities and sororities too. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Link (geometry)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 5#Link (geometry)

Dissapearance of SATENA Flight 8895

The result of the discussion was delete. Although the nomination was about the wrong number, subsequent deletion arguments focused on the typo, while the non-delete !votes did not. Jay 💬 05:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Dissapearance of SATENA Flight 8895 → SATENA Flight 8849 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It should either be moved to Disappearance of SATENA Flight 8849, or simply deleted as a broken redirect because it appears 8895 is the wrong number. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

move, per nom Actually, Thryduulf's post below is convincing Actually actually, everybody else makes a pretty good case that we should delete Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Move If done, SATENA Flight 8895 should be deleted as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep This a {{R from move}}. I'm not sure whether there was confusion about the flight number or something else, but both are plausible search terms, see e.g. In an official statement, SATENA said Flight NSE 8849/ 9R-8895, [...] departed from Camilo Daza Airport in Cúcuta at 11:42 a.m. local time and was scheduled to land in Ocaña at around 12:05 p.m.. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, since the redirect nominated is not Disappearance of SATENA Flight 8895, but Dissapearance of SATENA Flight 8895. While a misnomer is a plausible search term, the combination of a misnomer and a misspelling is not and is highly unlikely. The misspelled title only lasted for 8 minutes before being moved to the correct spelling. I also don't see the point of moving the redirect to another misspelled page. Mathguy2718 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, in addition to the misspelling of "disappearance". No prejudice against creating other helpful redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. While we usually keep redirects with plausible typos, it is highly implausible that people will search for (a) "disappearance" (the flight had indeed disappeared at the time the article was at this title, but the wreckage was located the following day) combined with (b) the wrong flight number AND (c) the typo. And as pointed out by Mathguy2718, the article was only at the incorrect title for 8 minutes. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Savala (onion)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 5#Savala (onion)

Artistic gymnastics at the 2026 Summer Youth Olympics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#Artistic gymnastics at the 2026 Summer Youth Olympics

José Antonio Galilea Vedaurre

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 8#José Antonio Galilea Vedaurre

Owl digestion

The result of the discussion was retarget to Owl#Behavior in the absence of any argument against that proposal. (non-admin closure) J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Owl digestionOwl digestion → Owl (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Doesn't seem to be any such precise description of either how owls digest things ... or how others digest owls ... in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Owl#Behavior gets close enough that I'm tentatively comfortable with this, though it would be better if there were explicit mention. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting to Owl#Behavior?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Typically in these situations, one either adds the relevant info in the chief article and legitimizes the redirect page's existence or one simply deletes the redirect page because of a lack of applicable info found in the chief article. As of now, let's get rid of it. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE ASUKITE 16:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Like BDD, I'm comfortable too with the refining. There are no incoming links, so it's not like making this a redlink will prompt editors to create an article or section for it, or that we can find enough undue information to create a section. Jay 💬 05:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Either Refine per BDD or retarget to Pellet (ornithology) which gives more information but is not focused on owls. I'm not sure which I favour. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete This title would make more sense to me as a separate article. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if there was enough encyclopaedic information to write a whole article about this, but even if there is why make it harder for readers to find the information we currently have before it is written? Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Goes to Washington

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 23#Goes to Washington

Pakistán

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 29 § Paquistan – Mixed

Pakistán → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Paquistan → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Paquistán → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pákistán → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pakistano → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pakistāna → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pakistana → Pakistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are the Spanish, Czech, Esparanto, and Latvian translations of "Pakistan" respectively. The last is the Italian for a "[female] Pakistani". These seem to all fail WP:RLOTE; so delete all. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 12:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN (aka WP:RLOTE per nom). Redirect pages of an article in different languages seems to be a common issue. Readers or searchers would ideally be redirected to the appropriate page in the Wikipedia language version of what they searched - having a multitude of different language spellings dedicated to a specific page just needlessly takes up space. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE ASUKITE 16:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep Pakistán per Template:ISO 3166 code. It has other incoming links as well. Dudzcar (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. "Pakistán" had a single incoming link in main space, which I have just fixed. It has one in talk space which is inconsequential, and finally, all those country code templates are also inconsequential; they merely use it as an example in the template doc. There's no issue whether it's a red link, or simply not linked at all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep most; retarget "Pakistano" and "Pakistana" to Pakistanis. The conclusion that these redirects should be deleted, based off an essay, is nonsensical when Plaza de Pakistán and Pakistānas kebabs are article titles. "Pakistán" receives comparable views to Plaza de Pakistán, yet while the latter justifies an article (and would justify a redirect were it not the article title) the former apparently doesn't even justify a redirect. On Spanish Wikipedia, the "Pakistán" receives 700 times the views of "Plaza de Pakistán". Yet we're expected to believe the square has many times greater affection to the Spanish language than the country? One might argue that Plaza de Pakistán should exist since it is likely to be encountered in English-language sources referring to the square. Yet "Pakistán" is much more likely to be encountered in English-language text. Restricting my Google results to English, I get 5.67 million results for "Pakistán" -wikipedia -plaza, compared to 1,570 results for "Plaza de Pakistán" -wikipedia. That suggests "Pakistán" is a much, much more likely search term for English speakers than "Plaza de Pakistán", so unless that one should be deleted as well I think this redirect should be kept. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed the guideline that states article titles are better at assessing the merits of redirects than essays. Delete all. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes I think you have. D8, the presumable argument for deletion, suggests deletion may be warranted if a redirect is "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name[,] that is not mentioned". Looking at other article names is an easy way to discover that "Pakistán" et al. aren't "very obscure". J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
And yet, you've failed to show that these words are used in English to describe the subjects of these redirects: Pakistan and Pakistanis. Wikipedia has a longstanding convention of treating established names separately from their components. The fact that there exists a dish near-universally known in English as chicken Kiev does not conflict with having an article titled Kyiv, just as it's possible to have American Pekin, German Pekin, Peking duck, and Beijing. In all of these cases, it has been determined that outdated and contemporary English names are treated separately from one another in relevant contexts. It naturally follows that a word that isn't of English origin at all, being used as part of a foreign-language proper name, does not dictate anything about the commonness or obscurity of that individual word in English. At best, you could argue that Pakistán and Pakistānas should each respectively redirect to Plaza de Pakistán and Pakistānas kebabs (though I would still disagree). — An anonymous username, not my real name 19:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate. Kiev redirects to Kyiv. Peking redirects to Beijing. Those outdated terms remain popular in part due to their usage in names like Peking duck and Chicken kiev. Do you dispute any of those things? J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Nope. Both Kiev and Peking are older English (emphasis here) words that might pop up in other contexts. However, if they were only ever used in English to reference poultry, then it wouldn't make sense for them to redirect to those cities. — An anonymous username, not my real name 16:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Why not? The reader cognisant of Peking duck might want to know to what Peking refers. It's the same for the reader who knows Plaza de Pakistán, wanting to understand what Pakistán is. Moreover, even though that justifies a redirect on its own it's clearly not the major usecase of the Pakistán redirect. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete @J947: The relevant bit to quote from WP:R#D8 is In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Paradoctor (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Generally discouraging creation is abstracted in two ways from always encouraging deletion. That sentence cannot be read without the context that the rationale it is under refers to novel or very obscure synonyms. In that context it reads "this type of redirect should not be created because it tends to be a very obscure synonym not mentioned at the target". These are categorically not "very obscure". J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Spirit/letter. And if you need to explain your interpretation of the guideline, you're probably well advised to edit the guideline.
5.67 million results for "Pakistán" -wikipedia -plaza Did you check the search results? I did. Please do it yourself, and let us know your findings. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The spirit of the guideline is more important than its letter, which is why it must be read in context. Now I haven't checked all 5.77 million results (it's increased since I last checked) but I'm seeing a lot of mixed English/Spanish-language webpages using this term, likely to read by English Wikipedia readers. One or two reliable sources making a misspelling generally justifies the plausibility of a misspelling redirect. There shouldn't be any doubt that thousands justify the existence of a redirect for an alternative name. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Provide a few of those reliable sources, please. Because I don't see it. All I found was sources misidentified by Google as English-language. Paradoctor (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
, , , . J 947 ‡ ^edits 07:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Clearly a typo in an address. NUML itself uses accent-free. Also note that another address directly before does not use the accent, either, and so does none of the other uses on the page.

All uses of "Pakistán" are from bits of Spanish text. The English parts use "Pakistan".

Chapter title in a Spanish-language book: "Language: Spanish | Also available in English, French". The English-language version uses "Pakistan", obviously.

That's from the headline of a table naming its subject in English - French - Spanish: "Pakistan - Pakistan - Pakistán".

One typo, the rest are as I said before: Google shitting all over itself. In no case is there a chance that an English reader will be confused about what the English term for "Pakistán" is: "Pakistan". Paradoctor (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, Pakistán is a Spanish-language word and will very rarely be used (rather than mentioned) in English. I apologise if I implied otherwise. But those four examples all demonstrate ways English-speaking and non-Spanish-speaking readers might come across this term, let alone Spanish-speaking readers. The misspelling alone arguably justifies a redirect, and yet it will only account for a very small percentage of Pakistán's views. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
By this rationale, we'd have to abandon WP:RLOTE, because this exact argument applies to any word. In Spanish, and many other languages. Paradoctor (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
No, it only applies to well-used ones that aren't "very obscure" as D8 (which, again, is the only policy basis for the arguments at RLOTE) requires. In fairness, there are many other good reasons why non-English redirects are helpful even when the reader knows what the term they're searching means. It's just that RLOTE's application is particularly damaging for redirects from translations of countries' names, due to their proliferation in diplomacy and international law and the concomitant reasonable expectation that English-speaking readers will come across a term and want to know its meaning. Translation redirects for countries don't get created so frequently for no reason. J 947 ‡ ^edits 03:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Can't make you see what you can't see. 巴基斯坦 Paradoctor (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete I'm not convinced. Topics like "Plaza de Pakistán" are essentially distractions here; they're different topics with different answers to the criteria RLOTE poses. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Settling velocity

The result of the discussion was no consensus. At a glance, it could probably indeed be un-refined to just point to Terminal velocity, since it's bolded in the lede, but there's also the hatnote at the target section. I'll leave that call to someone who knows the subject better. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Settling velocitySettling velocity → Terminal velocity#Terminal velocity in the presence of buoyancy force (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

weak nom, if it needs saying

the article (and most results i could find) define the term primarily as a synonym of terminal velocity, and the other meaning is both so "close enough" that it hardly matters, and also mentioned in the target. for those purposes, should this be unrefined and the hatnote in that section moved up (and potentially adjusted)? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Adequate synonym for a redirect to be needed. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Growth retardation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 5#Growth retardation

Goal doll

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 5#Goal doll

User:Saga Communications

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G7, the author has requested deletion. This also fits under WP:G6's unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Saga Communications → Saga Communications (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete the user one/redirect as I mistakenly move the page into a user page. OWaunTon (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Convert to a soft redirect. This is almost always the simplest, friendliest and least disruptive way to handle user to mainspace redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete since this was clearly an error, as shown in the page history. This would be WP:G6 if there wasn't someone who already voted something other than delete. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Mothra Leo

The result of the discussion was keep. It's now mentioned at the target. If you have opinions on whether or not it should continue to be mentioned (and are not a sock), there is a talk page discussion that has been started. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Mothra LeoMothra Leo → Rebirth of Mothra (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8 § Mothra Leo – delete
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26 § Leo (kaiju) – delete
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 6 § Mothra Leo – delete (bartender)

this again!? see the previous rfd. the mention in the previous target (godzilla island) is in passing, and also unsourced consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that previous discussions may not have involved enough voices for discussion. Also, there are multiple sources, most importantly reliable and academic sources, that use the name and the name is mentioned in the first movie "Rebirth of Mothra." SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete & Salt per other RfD. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Mention of Mothra Leo has been in and out of various articles multiple times, even since the last RfD without ever having been properly discussed afaict. There needs to be a proper discussion (not here) about whether and if so where it should be mentioned. Only after that consensus has been determined does it make sense to discuss the redirect, because a redirect is appropriate if there is a significant mention somewhere but not if there isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
nothing really prevents the discussion from happening here. that said, i haven't been able to find any reliable sources about him specifically. unreliable sources did imply two things, though
- a worrisome amount of people mistake mothra leo for his mom
- "leo mothra" also works
...those details aren't really important to the part where i don't think a redirect would be warranted considering the mentions currently present, even at mothra, or that more fleshed-out mentions would be warranted consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
On what planet is a consensus discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of disputed material in an article an matter for RfD!? Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
earth. where'd you get the idea that article content being altered to warrant specific results in rfd isn't a thing that can happen? that'd make results other than literally just keeping, retargeting, or deleting impossible, among other stuff that would've seemed pointless and unwieldy in 2005 consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are on about? Consensus discussions about disputed article content have (since before I joined the project in late 2004) happened on article talk pages. That's the point of article talk pages. RfD is not, and has never been, a forum for altering article content. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
ah, got it, let's just have a discussion that goes through the exact same points and to the exact same conclusion elsewhere, even though nothing in relevant policies or guidelines even implies that this idea holds any ground. i can't just withdraw my cash from an atm unless i drag that atm to a bank, that'd be heresy consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
What have ATMs got to do with anything!? Until very recently there wasn't any need or benefit to having specific policy pages stating the blindingly obvious, but it was (and is still to most people) blindingly obvious that the place to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of controversial article content is on the talk page of the article concerned, which is where editors of the article will see that there is a discussion about the article content. Hiding that discussion behind a notice that a redirect to the article is being discussed is deceptive. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
if it needs explaining, the atm thing is what is known as a "metaphor". a type of figure of speech categorized by comparison, implicit or otherwise, of at least two different concepts that share functional similarities in some way relevant to the point being made. in this case, the assumption that money has to be withdrawn at a bank even though there was already a perfectly fucntional atm in another location is meant to be in comparison to the assumption that an argument to determine consensus for the inclusion of more fleshed-out mentions of mothra leo has do be done outside of rfd despite an already-ongoing discussion and failure to find sources that weren't just plot summaries (except for this one, which has a small bit of analysis of leo buried in the plot summary and a list of his however many forms)

that aside, that's a pretty weird use of the terms "most people" and "blindingly obvious", in how it rigidly treats one specific idea like the only way to do something, assumes a level of agreement right off the bat, and does so for what's effectively the "maybe it'll get more love elsewhere" argument. i can say that most people think that assuming a certain amount of participation is inherent and guaranteed in pretty much any other venue only works on paper, and it'll be just as effective given all the no evidence i give for it (even though there are actually a good few discussions i could point to where this really was the case)

this is to say, can you guarantee that there will be more participants to this discussion in a talk page such as talk:mothra? if not, this doesn't really work if the matter is already being discussed, and nothing prevents anyone from notifying more people

deletion sorting categories for rfds would be pretty neat, but i'm not sure they'd be technically feasible... consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I understood you were trying to make a metaphor, but the analogy doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything being discussed here as a physical machine to withdraw money and the correct venue to have a discussion on Wikipedia are entirely unrelated.

As I've repeatedly explained it's not about "more love" it's about the people interested in and knowledgeable about a discussion being aware of it both at the time and later. When researching why content X was (not) removed from the article, why would you look in the archives of RfD for a discussion that might (or might not) mention what you are looking for and might (or might not) contain comments by anybody with any actual relevant knowledge when the talk page exists for the exact purpose of having such discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
that's an argument for discussing something elsewhere being a good idea (which it is), not for having that same discussion in rfd being a bad idea (which, if put into practice to the extent established in those discussions, would reduce the number of possible outcomes to 4), and someone could recycle that same rationale (which really is just the "more love" routine with a fancier hat) to argue that just about anything short of transcluding an afd into its article or an rfd into its talk page would be similarly not as easy to find

ironically, afds are actually a little harder to find if an article was deleted or turned into a redirect at some point (not even necessarily in any given afd) than an rfd for a redirect whose target wasn't also deleted, unless someone remembers to put it back in the talk page if it's recreated. in both cases, if someone sees that it's a red link and attempts to check or create it, then previous deletions' logs will be made visible so they can have a look. that's how it is for moon child (video game), for example

also, people deprioritizing rfds when they're relevant for creating a page (article or otherwise) is their issue, not anything we'd need to bend rules to accomodate for, and not anything more worth bending rules for than just pointing them to those discussions consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I also voted "wait." I think the name "Mothra Leo" can be debatable and I can certainly understand the arguments of those who have asserted it is a "fan" name. I can also understand that the redirect is unnecessary. The 'genders' of the different Mothras can be discussed with verified reliable sources without using "fan" names. That said, the name "Mothra Leo" is often used in literature, interviews, and discussions about the franchise. So, I can see an argument to keep as well. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
The point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT, there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics), TOHO themselves never mention "Leo" in any of their official trailers on any of the three movies, it's a fan name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@GojiraFan1954 you have replied to me multiple times acknolwedign that the term "Mothra Leo" appears in movie content; although, that is not my argument for keeping, my argument is based on reliable sources that clearly use the term "Mothra Leo," I think it is important to take into consideration that you acknowledge its inclusion in official film content. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Judging from the page mothra this seems to be a major character in the rebirth of mothra trilogy, so I would retarget to there. Someone can also add sources to these plot summaries like https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Mothra+Leo%22 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebirth_of_Mothra&diff=prev&oldid=1332485971, perhaps. (Also, someone online is claiming the director's commentary says Mothra Leo is female — which seems like a citable source for the director's view of the plot I suppose.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

that seems like a good time to do the thing

HEY @GojiraFan1954, GET YOUR FEMURA IN HERE

are there details we're missing here? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The name Mothra Leo is a fan name. Emphasis on "fan", which in Wikipedia's policy, falls into WP:FANCRUFT. Not to mention, it was nominated multiple times after getting resurrected, and yet, I'm back at it again. Also do not use caps lock on me, when you can just speak to me on my talk page.

I've even watched the original movies themselves, and there is no mentions of "Leo", in any of the transcripts.

This better be the last time I ever make a response to this getting resurrected. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

don't worry, the caps thing was just for the sake of funny

it's just more efficient to notify you on this rfd than to leave a message on your talk page directing you to this rfd consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Very interestingly, special effects director, Koichi Kawakita, explicitly referred to the offspring in "Rebirth of Mothra" as male. The name "Mothra Leo" is debatable and clearly disputed here (although I still voted 'wait' because it is arguably mainstream), but the offspring being 'male' is referred to in multiple sources of varying degrees of reliability, including highly reliable sources from academics who study the subject of kaiju critically. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT, there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics), TOHO themselves never mention "Leo" in any of their official trailers on any of the three movies, it's a fan name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what WP:FANCRUFT says about the use of names that are derived or believed to be derived from fan names. It very clearly says "within Wikipedia itself, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contains original research."

Your argument that something is "fan cruft" is not itself sufficient especially given that you have not presented any reliable sources to substantiate your claims.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that you acknowledge "there is no mention of 'Leo' in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics)," I think it' is notable that you acknowledge the term does appear in the films. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Atomic breath/Hard delete - Don't know how this keeps getting resurrected. A name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. Since it's a fan name. Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
~~:I also vote Salt as well, and even lock creating this, so it can stop being resurrected. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
the somewhat funny thing here is that a fan name doesn't inherently veer into fancruft territory, if discussion of it exists among reliable sources (in which case it should ideally be clarified). the keyword here is "if", since none of this is reflected among sources in this case... and neither is much of anything, for that matter, which makes this name not worth mentioning in the first place consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
There are actually sources that use the name "Mothra Leo." One is a critical study of kaiju published in 2016. Of course, the content in the text could be included, namely that one of the Mothras has been referred to as a male offspring in official content, without using the name "Mothra Leo." However, the text, and other sources, do use the name. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
The point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT, there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics), TOHO themselves never mention "Leo" in any of their official trailers on any of the three movies, it's a fan name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
See my other responses to your same statements. You just acknowledged that it is in the film multiple times "(minus the songs since they are lyrics)." Also, please read WP:FANCRUFT that you have repeatedly referenced. It clearly says that even if something was "fan cruft" it can be included if there are sufficient reliable sources using it. In this case, we have multiple reliable sources, including at least academic source, and the film itself (via song) using the term "Mothra Leo." I understand if you do not like the term; we all have opinions. However, our individual opinions should not override reliable sources and movie content in this genre. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
"You just acknowledged that it is in the film multiple times" - No, I didn't acknowledge the song, I did the opposite, I dismissed the song, they're not the same thing, they are two separate meanings.

"we have multiple reliable sources, including at least academic source, and the film itself (via song) using the term "Mothra Leo."" Don't think it could be misinformed? Because recently, a lot of sources fell for a fan-made plot on Godzilla Minus Zero, and it was later debunked by Wikizilla, though that can be seen as WP:SPECULATION, you don't see me spam-reinstating it at all? No.

"I understand if you do not like the term; we all have opinions" - It's not that I don't like it at all, it's more of keeping the project less confusing and more truthful, as well has trying to be honest, and to be honest I'd be furious if I was running a franchise and then all of a sudden someone was running around with (and throwing around) a fan name targeting one of my characters, to the point I would publicly state, 'This is a fan name, and was never actually in the final product'.

Also, I see you decided to drop an SPI-bomb in secret without notifying me and knowing I did nothing wrong. This is literally now you trying to WP:TREATWIKIPEDIALIKEABATTLEFIELD, especially when I didn't ask for that. I'd suggest taking back that report. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
"Also, I see you...in secret without notifying me and knowing I did nothing wrong...especially when I didn't ask for that. @GojiraFan1954 I am following the outlined procedures. This is not the appropriate place to litigate and I'm not going to argue about that. Another editor pointed out some inconsistent activity and the process is there simply to ensure everything is above board. From WP:Sockpuppet Investigations "You do not need to notify the accused editors that you have opened an investigation on them, and in most cases should not. An administrator or clerk can handle this if necessary." I suggest dialing back the rhetoric in this conversation. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As for references, Wikizilla is not a reliable source; that's another online "encyclopedia" made by editors. Reliable sources take precedence over unofficial editor-contributed online encyclopedias. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Being considered a "fan" name does not automatically or necessarily result in deletion. The article you cite, WP:FANCRUFT, says "Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research." Therefore. the key issues are verifiability, neutrality, and original research. When there is a reliable source or sources, verifiability, and when stated neutrally, the content may not violate the policy. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
The point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT, there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics), TOHO themselves never mention "Leo" in any of their official trailers on any of the three movies, it's a fan name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You have just admitted it is mentioned in the movie via song. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't acknowledge the song, I did the opposite, I dismissed the song, not the same thing. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
"there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics)..."

and "I dismissed the song,..."

You do not get to dismiss official film content. That's not how this works. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Wait I vote 'wait.' As at least one other editor has noted, being considered (by some at least) to be a "fan" name does not "inherently veer into fancruft territory." I have watched the original movies as well and it's debatable that "Leo" is never mentioned as the name is mentioned in one of the songs. However, that would not be my primary argument for waiting. There is academic literature out there that discusses the Mothra franchise in depth and at least one such academic textbook discusses the significance of gender and the gender of the offspring of the Mothra in "Rebirth of Mothra."SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Here are some citations."Mothra Leo" is used, including an interview in one source from Kōichi Kawakita, the special effects director.
1. Barr, Jason (2016). The kaiju film: a critical study of cinema's biggest monsters. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. pp. 65–176. ISBN 978-0-7864-9963-2.
2. Pryor, Shawn (2024). Kaiju Unleashed: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Strange Beasts. Foreward by Jason Barr (1st ed.). Minneapolis: Becker & Meyer Books. p. 274. ISBN: 978-0-7603-9290-4
3. Special Graphix Mothra. (1996) Gakken, Japan. ISBN: T1065429731804
SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Correction for one citation: Special Graphix Mothra. (1996) Gakken, Japan. Series Identifier: T1065429731804 ISBN: 476488075X SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
The point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that falls into WP:FANCRUFT, there is no mentions of "Leo" in the transcripts of any of the movies (minus the songs since they are lyrics), TOHO themselves never mention "Leo" in any of their official trailers on any of the three movies, it's a fan name that falls into WP:FANCRUFT. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
That is not what WP:FANCRUFT says. It also specifically notes that when something is substantiated by reliable sources, it can (and I would argue should encyclopedically) be included. It is not any single editor's decision to disregard reliable sources or the movie itself (which you acknowledge does include the name in movie content) because you don't like it. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

About WP:FANCRUFT from the article you linked, "within Wikipedia itself, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contains original research." SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete and salt. per claims of GojiraFan1954 ~2026-35919-13 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I have so very little faith that this isn't GojiraFan1954 engaging in logged out socking. J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree. It's concerning. @GojiraFan1954 also acknowledged multiple times that the term "Leo" is included in movie content via song lyrics. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't acknowledge the song, I did the opposite, I dismissed the song, not the same thing. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you said it is in the film and uses the name "Mothra Leo." As editors, we do not get to "dismiss" materials. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@J947 Apparently, GojiraFan1954 was, in fact, using sock puppets and that account was the sock puppet of another account. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources to substantiate Gojira1954's claims? Wikipedia depends on sources, reliable sources, to substantiate content. I do not see a single cited source in this discussion that confirms "Mothra Leo" is purely fan-cruft and that it is rejected by Toho. In fact, the movie, "Rebirth of Mothra", mentions "Mothra Leo" in song. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment - A similar case to this can be Zilla Junior, which is a fan-name that also falls into WP:FANCRUFT, as there were no mentions from TOHO themselves of "Zilla Junior", at all. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
A major difference is there are multiple reliable sources, including at least one academic source, and the effects director giving information in an interview. Then, there is the primary source of the name bering mentioned in the movie content (something you acknowledged). SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep I am updating my vote from "Wait" to "keep," due to the sources I cited being reliable and also clearly referencing "Mothra Leo", and because one of the main objectors in this discussion acknowledged that the name does appear in the movie content (in song). I think that the fact there are multiple reliable sources, included an academic source, should be sufficient to keep.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment - The point is, Toho has never, explicitly mentioned "Leo" ever in any of the official trailers, nor transcripts of the actual movies, whether it English dubbed or not, still proves the point, I'm just surprised how so many people have fallen for this fan name. Besides, as that quote suggested, I was so confused, because it's called "Rebirth of Mothra", not "Birth of Mothra Leo", not "Mothra Leo", not even "Rebirth of Mothra Leo" at all, it's called "Rebirth of Mothra". My source overall, is Toho themselves, since I have seen the movies, and therefore rely on what the original sourced material says, not vague fan names that try to trick people into confusing them.

If it truly was involving a male version of Mothra, then Toho would have explicitly stated it publicly on their official trailers, official transcripts, official movie source material, etc., they would never, ever intentionally confuse people. And since Toho has never confirmed themselves publicly that a supposed "male mothra" was supposedly in the movies, there's no reason to assume that Mothra Leo is an official name. I even got confused when I first saw the mentions of "Leo", I was even like, "who's Leo" and "This is supposed to be Mothra, not Leo, so who is Leo?". GojiraFan1954 (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion over "Mothra Leo" and whether the offspring int he film is "male" are tangentially related but are different topics. Mothra's offspring can be male and not called Mothra Leo. Conversely, Mothra Leo could be called such and not be male. These are two different issues.

1) the film includes the name "Mothra Leo" in "Rebirth of Mothra"

2. Multiple reliable sources, including an academic source and an interview from the special effects director, name "Mothra Leo"

3) Toho can be a source if you can cite specific articles/entries/texts etc. But, saying "Toho is my source" is not a citation. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment I am adding another reference, this one a primary source. In the film, "Rebirth of Mothra" the film refers to the offspring of Mothra in song as "Mothra Leo." Below are the citations for the soundtrack song and the film.
1) Yano, Akiko. "Mothra Leo", Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, 1996.

2) Yoneda, O. (Director). (1996). Rebirth of Mothra [Film]. Toho.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

...huh? gojirafan's been blocked as a sockpuppeteer? that's strange and a little underwhelming, but for now, i'll just mention that my opinion on if this should be deleted or not depends entirely on if it's mentioned consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I had not seen that. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just saw it, @Consarn. I think that the redirect should be kept and the reliable sources that confirm "Mothra Leo" is mentioned (including the primary source, the film) be added to the articles to support it. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

other way around, preferably, though i'm not sure how to go about it consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding; I'm sorry that I'm not understanding. Can you share more about what you mean by "the other way around" and I'm happy to participate in any editing with citation formatting (if needed)? SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

ideally, the mention should be added first to avoid making the redirect surpising consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 20:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I understand. I think, with reliable sources to back up the primary source, it can be worded something like "The offspring of Mothra, the first major 'male' Mothra in the franchise, is known as Mothra or, in one film song, as "Mothra Leo."

Of course, it can be worded in many legitimate ways. What do you think and/or what would you change? SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, no thanks for pulling him into this RfD and ending his wikipedia career (/jk) He did go into panic mode and was canvassing to delete this. Jay 06:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per SeminarianJohn, who has provided some valid and seemingly reliable references which support the redirect's existence. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep per SeminarianJohn. Great job! You provided more evidence than I ever could and then some! It appears poor ol' GojiraFan1954 got himself blocked indefinitely, so this topic is now moot. Armegon (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, @Armegon. It took some time to read up on this. I ended up adding some new books to my collection (as if I need more in my library) for this research. (Not that I need an excuse to buy more books...) SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I made it clear before to GojiraFan1954 that Mothra Leo has official capacity and he backed off. I don't understand why he came back with more of this fancruft nonsense. So I guess leave the redirect just the way it was? I'd say WP:QUO applies here. Armegon (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
He was upset about this and had canvassed to delete (I'll assume good faith). Jay 06:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Meleanie Hain

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Meleanie Hain → Open carry in the United States#Demonstrations and events (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:A7. Subject is non-notable, title redirects to an article where they are not mentioned (were, but material removed as UNDUE/TRIVIA). No reason to retain given they aren't mentioned in the target. Hemmers (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meleanie Hain closed as delete in 2014 although a mention had been added to Open carry in the United States#Open carry demonstrations and events. That mention was boldly removed by Anastrophe two days ago. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Thryduulf. I wasn't aware that there was a full article at one point; however, that's immaterial here. In terms of the deletion, it's possible I was overly strict in interpretation of 'demonstrations and events' - which to me sounds like a) public first amendment protected protest, anb b) birds-of-a-feather sorts of "events". I think the construct is poor, perhaps 'incidents' would have been clearer. If indeed incident is what was meant, then I'd consider it appropriate for re-inclusion in the open carry article - regardless of the redirect, which is probably undue based on the description at the merge/redirect discussion in 2014. Hope that's clearer than mud. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Acrobat (comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Acrobat (comics)

Zhou Xifang

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 08:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Zhou Xifang → Zhou Xinfang (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Xifang" is a different ~~surname~~ given name from "Xinfang", and there at least 10 people on LinkedIn alone (!) whose names are atonally romanized "Xifang Zhou", so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment the surname is "Zhou". "Xifang" and "Xinfang" are both given names -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

amended my nom statement accordingly Duckmather (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Different given names. -- ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. At least as likely to confuse as to help. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Partido Democrat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 4#Partido Democrat

"Stelllar" typo redirects

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 07:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Stelllar mass black hole → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stelllar mass black holes → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stelllar-mass black hole → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stelllar-mass black holes → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stelllar black hole → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stelllar black holes → Stellar black hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely typo. Three "l"s. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delllete No English word has three of the same letter in a row. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Surely it's actually a fairly likely typo to accidentally hit a key three times instead of 2. It's just not a likely misspelling. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

There are some words that do have three in a row, e.g. hmmm, Invernessshire, goddessship, eeew etc. but they tend to be less-common alternative spellings of compound or suffixed words and/or onomatopoeic interjections. The above redirects are examples of neither. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as unlikely typo, evidenced by the extremely low view counts these redirects have (<4 each in total over the past 4 years). Shazback (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
delete, but not per nom. that's a plausible typpo on its own, but not with at least two other words. in this case, the search function or results will have people covered consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2026 Asian Games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 4#Athletics at the 2026 Asian Games

Aki (computer game)

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Some participants favoured a different target of Ambrosia Software § Games instead of deletion. There were no arguments to keep the redirect pointed to Mahjong, hence I'm doing the retarget. Jay 💬 21:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Aki (computer game)Aki (computer game) → Mahjong (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

blar. was cruft with no reliable sources. was then a redirect to mahjong video game, which was cruft with no sources, and where it was unmentioned. not worth restoring. not better off retargeted to ambrosia software either, since the game's name is "aki mahjong" consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The redirect is definitely inappropriate as it stands; it seems to me that Aki Mahjong and its ports were mahjong solitaire games, not mahjong games (as in, the 4-player rummy-family subfamily of games). And yes, there is also the naming issue; the game's name is "Aki Mahjong", not "Aki", and no hits for Aki Mahjong turn up when I Google "Aki (computer game)" or similar, which leads me to believe that this is not a term used by anyone to refer to this game. So we have an incorrectly-named title, redirecting to the wrong article; I think WP:RDELETE #2, #5, and/or #8 applies here.

If any related redirect should exist (and I think it should!), then we should redirect Aki Mahjong (the actual name of the game) to Ambrosia Software. Edderiofer (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Some sources evidently do treat "Aki" as the title of the game, with "Mahjong Solitaire" included only as a subtitle, rather treating its title as "Aki Mahjong". (Gameforge: "Aki: Mahjong Solitaire", Macintosh Garden: "Aki - Mahjong Solitaire".) – Scyrme (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to Ambrosia Software § Games as {{r to list entry}}. Per the results I linked in reply to Edderiofer, it seems some people do interpret the name of the game as "Aki". Unless this is ambiguous with another computer game, I don't see a good reason to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per above. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Retargte per Scyrme. Plausible search term that is apparently unambiguous, so no reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

ZhongWen

The result of the discussion was keep. ASUKITE 16:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

ZhongWenZhongWen → Chinese language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

CamelCase-style redirect created in 2016, long after this type of redirect no longer needed to be created. Delete. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - CamelCase style non-standard romanizations are still used in China at times. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE ASUKITE 16:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WhisperToMe, this style of spelling (camel case with a capital letter for each Chinese character) is pretty common in English in China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Repubblika ta'Malta

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Repubblika ta'MaltaRepubblika ta'Malta → Malta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible misspelling (there's a missing space between the apostrophe and "Malta"); all-time total of 304 pageviews, which could very easily be WP:BACKGROUNDNOISE considering the redirect's age; delete. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Repubblika ta'Malta is an implausible misspelling of Repubblika ta' Malta? Sorry but I do not see that, especially for English speakers. Just because its grammatically wrong in Maltese does not mean an English speaker would recognise it as such. I thought this was going to be about WP:RLANG when I saw the nomination. The misspelling has more views in the past year than the correct spelling, so if we are to take your essay at face value then the correct spelling isn't a helpful redirect either. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle, a few points I'd like to say are:

1. in the past year is a arbitrary cut-off point for page views; furthermore my essay addresses all-time page views. The recent bump in stats could be from any number of reasons, including recently-added incorrect wikilinks in well-viewed articles that later got removed.

2. My essay simply states, "A redirect having dozens or hundreds of total [i.e. all-time] page views doesn't necessarily [emphasis added] merit keeping it." It does not state, "A redirect which only has dozens or hundreds of total page views must be deleted." There are other factors that can be at play, such as it being the official name of the country in its official language (I understand you're not arguing for the correct spelling's deletion, instead I'm seeking to explain how my essay was never intended to be used in the way you are implying (i.e. that Repubblika ta' Malta wouldn't be a helpful redirect according to it).

3. I made this nomination in the spirit of other recent nominations involving missing spaces, such as the successfully deleted Josephstalin and the mega nomination involving over a hundred similar missing-space redirects (see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19#Alanturing and nearby nominations.) This is why I, initially at least, thought the redirect was implausible.

Now I'll grant you that there are more page views than I would have thought there'd be compared to the correct spelling, so I'll leave it to other editors to give their thoughts on whether it is implausible or not; sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, I just want to be clear and to the point. Cheers, 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The difference is an English speaker would note Josephstalin as an error almost immediately, but an English speaker (without knowledge of Maltese) likely will not recognise Repubblika ta'Malta as an error, I certainly didn't (note the lack of space between apostrophe) when I saw this RFD. It is also an ICR error e.g. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Traumnovelle. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as plausible mis-spelling; spaces after apostrophes are not common in English. Shazback (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

CNN Underscored

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 4#CNN Underscored