Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

6858:- no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to 1226:- This appears to be the original title of the template it points to. I presume the women's event was started in 2020 or not covered until then. Template shortcuts are very often ambiguous. As they are for editors (not readers), this does little harm. Weak because I am sympathetic to the nominators point. If this were in the mainspace a disambiguation would very much be due; however, such an action is not appropriate for a template redirect and I do not support deletion (because ambiguity is not grounds to delete a 5676:. As Trailblazer101 points out, the central claim of the OP—that the target article doesn't mention the catchphrase—is no longer true. I was one of two users who added content about the catchphrase and its significance as part of the reception of the character. It was interesting to notice this RFD involving the catchphrase. From what I've found, coverage of this catchphrase substantially gravitates around the character covered in the target article. 8857: 8838: 7856: 6570: 5797: 2812: 1339: 478: 244: 8506:. I personally believe that it is a genuine misspelling or respelling, but you would probably be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that mentions it being a meme or shitpost. Honestly, I don't even remember making this redirect in 2012, but I doubt that "Raymoo Hackery" ever crossed my mind since we would be discussing a "Raymoo Hackery" redirect as well. Regardless, the outcome doesn't really matter to me, so do what you may. — 4951: 5243:

seeking the article for Jack Benny; it is more plausible that people who search for the phrase "now cut that out" are looking for written material about the phrase "now cut that out". This information is not present at the Jack Benny article, so this redirect disappoints & misleads searchers who expect to find material specific to their Knowledge search at the target page.

4222:, I honestly hadn't realized I made the nomination! Shame on me, definitely not something I should have done. I don't always pay attention to the names of nominators and I'm definitely not proud that I made this mistake. I'm happy to withdraw this nom as well based on the change at the target (not that it's not already decided based on the keeps and rationale. 5680:, the first hit for "I can do this all day" is about the topic of the target article. To address a delete argument, this would not be like redirecting "America" to the target article because both keyword searching and general assessment of sources demonstrates clearly that coverage of the term "America" does not gravitate around MCU character Steve Rogers. 6881:(weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main-: --> 5202:

has ever said. Indeed, famous people might have famous quotes. But even among the greatest of these, without a reference to substantiate its famousness at the target biography, there's no reason to keep it as a misleading redirect (misleading in the sense that it indicates to readers we have content when we do not). My suggestion is to delete.

2518: 1189: 3849:

despite the links, does not display any other event or news story that has ever been described using the phrase "Biden crisis". This RFD is an extremely clear example of a correct redirect based on reliable sources, and I am genuinely surprised to see that there are good, long-standing editors that cannot see this

4339: 3863:

Indeed, there is lots of evidence of this event being the primary topic for the search term "Biden crisis" and nearly all the attempted refutation is actually completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what people are looking for when they search the exact term "Biden crisis" - what people

5246:

If these searchers wanted to read about Jack Benny, they wouldn't search "now cut that out", but instead search for the name "Jack Benny". Searching for the name of an individual with a Knowledge page will give users the page they're searching for with ~99% accuracy. Searching for a quote yet ending

3242:

there are many things that have been called a crisis during his term in office that could be referred to (especially by political opponents) as "Biden crisis" but this is by far the primary topic. Is that recentism? It's too soon to know! What we do know is that people using this search term now are

1995:

The target of all of these related redirects is a section that no longer exists in the target article. (These are all related to fictional characters or works within the fiction of the show itself — hence doubly fictional, which presumably is why the content didn't survive.) There doesn't seem to be

6011:

conservative when retargetting shortcuts as the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is high - interpretations of things said in old discussions can be changed, and people familiar with the link won't look to see if the target is changed leading to people potentially using the same words to

5242:

All material on Knowledge must be verifiable. There is no content on Knowledge about this phrase besides a sourceless redirect, and no sources present in the article to back up the assertion of this quote's famousness. There is no evidence that people searching for the phrase "now cut that out" are

6903:

project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Knowledge, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining

5201:

content related to their search of "cutting that out", as "cut"-ting is never talked about there. "Who said this line" is a service provided entirely by Google and is the reason that WikiQuote exists, allowing us to avoid baking thousands of WP redirects into concrete, based on anything any person

3848:

Some sources referring to the event at "a crisis" or some other phrase does not diminish the fact multiple reliable sources referred to it as "Biden crisis". It also makes no difference whether the words "Biden" and "crisis" have appeared completely separately in other news stories. This argument,

6012:

refer to different targets. However in this case, there are no relevant links (although edit summaries and unlinked uses can't be discounted) and very few uses (11 this year before today) meaning the risk of issues in this specific case is outweighed by the greater utility of the proposed target.

2560: 4615:

These redirects should be deleted. The developer's name and a typo are being redirected to its first notable game; the article itself mentions the developer's history but the redirect is barely used outside of articles for its games as well as game list articles. I do not believe it will be used

2602: 570: 3505:

Eh? Redirects exist to take people from search terms they are likely to use to the content they are looking for when using that search term. We do this regardless of why they might be using the term. Deleting a redirect simply because it is used by one politician would be a massive failure of

2240: 4789: 7117:

reference page (policy). It has no other usage than that. If a reader who is not an editor becomes involved in a talk page discussion, then it might actually lead that reader to beome an editor. The point is, it's just a shortcut, and it doesn't matter what namespace it's in. It's just a

4933: 3714:

Recentism is about article content. If something else becomes the primary target in the future then we can retarget or disambiguate at that point. We best serve the readers who are looking this up now by taking them to what the primary target is now, not making things harder because

7355: 5912: 5530: 1924: 4922: 5314:

I'll bet you weren't using an exact phrase search. Google Advanced Search gives me only Jack Benny (with a small smattering of other uses that seem mostly derivative and don't start until the second page of search results, like Meet the Parents, The Jetsons and Scooby Doo).

6979:: There's nothing inherently wrong with CNRs. Our goal is to help the reader get to where they want to go. Anyone typing "CheckUser" into the search bar evidently wants to get to the project page. Deleting it is just removing a helpful, unambiguous redirect for no reason. 5142: 7700: 6454: 6242: 4604: 3911:

sources posted, each with different author and from a different reliable source (not just Axios/Politico). Even if it were just one "group of writers" that would not affect the fact that it was called "Biden crisis" by some, and no other event has been called that.

3544:

Just to double check - you're accusing me of sealioning (with a total of 3 comments) - and saying my motivation for doing this is because you think I'm pro-Trump and want to post "Knowledge describes and confirms Biden's Crisis" on twitter? Genuine question: huh???

369:, before being redirected back to the list. Therefore, I need to see if this should be (re)targeted to the highway in Canada (which may be the primary topic?) or kept at its current target (the list). Again, the history of the redirect page is why I took it to RFD. 1964: 1471: 1431: 4053: 3172: 1882: 1773: 138: 346: 5251:

an indiscriminate collection of unreferenced quote-person-associations. Wikiquote is more suitable for connecting people with the quotes they said, although searching for "now cut that out" on Google still recommends the Knowledge page for Jack Benny anyway.

1842: 6679: 4562: 2909: 6754:: I think the question should be whether this is a potential useful redirect and whether it's unambiguous. I think it is, on both accounts. It being a cross-namespace redirect does not mean it's not useful. Those types of redirects aren't covered under 4939: 589:

due to believing the base title not being adequate for explaining this redirect. However, I just realized that due to the fact the word "games" is in this redirect, the redirect's title seems to be an incorrect connection to its target due to potential

8767:

I don't think that's a fair assumption. What if you only heard the name on a podcast and now you want to know more information? This looks like a plausible attempt at spelling it, especially for those unfamiliar with how Japanese is usually Romanized.

8441: 4945: 7972: 4423:

the redirect. A quick web search indicates that the term "ideological neutrality of the state" is a Christian conservative euphemism for opposition towards LGBTQ+ education in public schools. Neither of the two proposed articles are a good target.

2982:

to my knowledge, it only really ever pops up with this exact name in the rpgs (and the movie), and seems more closely associated with paper mario than mario & luigi. not sure if that warrants keeping, but i'll go with an overwhelmingly strong

870: 5633:

I'm surprised, but Google Advanced Search for the exact phrase is very dominated by Steve Rogers / Captain America. (There's also a country song, but I don't find the artist on Knowledge and his Youtube channel has only about 1300 subscribers.)

5541:

A catchphrase not mentioned at the target article, which gives insufficient context and does not provide readers with an explanation. People interested in Captain America would look up the character, not the quote from the Avengers (I think).

3355:

Not adequately sourced enough, the term "It's Joever" was actually used far more to refer to Biden's diminishing capacity to win the election in the months before his withdraw than "Biden crisis." Biden crisis can refer to a bunch of things.

6904:

it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Knowledge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (

1501:: term is not used anywhere else on Knowledge, and I see too many varied usages in sources for it to be targeted to any specific one. This use case certainly isn't the first I would suggest. If they had to go anywhere, I would think 7523:- Since this is mentioned at the target and "Trickle-down economics" is a very common descriptor of policies like this. Neutral on whether the redirect should be to the article in general or to the "Usage" section of the article. — 7398:

Major examples of what critics have called "trickle-down economics" in the U.S. include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Major UK examples include Liz Truss's mini-budget tax cuts of

4869: 3689:. the next time he gets tangled up in something, it could very well become the next "biden crisis", just as there were "biden crises" before this one, and this discussion could happen again, and again, and again, until he dies 3637:

using the same logic as "pokémon incident", this requires defining "crisis" in a way that somehow narrows it down to this specific event and not any of the other crises and controversies he was involved in. i'll support

153:

these are actually harmful to the project and require a lot of overhead to make things work. Editors wishing to add short descriptions to articles should take the 1 minute to read this instead of creating new redirects.

6926:

for the background) and frequently deleted. Exceptions do exist, most commonly (but not exclusively) where it is desirable that the target page is easy to find by very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet

6958:, when CheckUser is used as a rationale for a block or referenced on those noticeboards sometimes. I am not saying they shouldn't be discouraged, but this is one that actually makes sense, in my view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( 6089:

OK I hadn't noticed it was only created last November (I assumed it was created years back when the case was ongoing) and all links are indeed from this RFD so retargeting seems sensible rather than disambiguation.

3378:- I have posted several sources above that use the term - could you expand on why these aren't adequate? They're pretty well respected news sources and they use the term in their headlines to describe this event 8845: 6935:

are examples). The second most common is for internal aspects that people outside the project will have heard of (or assume exist) and want to look up but which don't have an encyclopaedic target (e.g.

3931:

per Bugghost. It is defined and adequately sourced at the target, which is good enough for me. On the other hand, suggestions of ambiguity has not been substantiated with usage of the specific term. --

2506: 4321: 5572:, per nom (and BarrelProof's counter-questions in parallel noms notwithstanding), I don't (personally) associate this line with the target character, but I feel confident I've heard it two or three 4987: 3308: 3148: 2512: 5960:

exists as a redirect) there's little reason for WP:SCIENTOLOGY to point to RfArb/Scientology anymore, and the WikiProject seems like it is and always should have been the more reasonable target. —

4914: 8864: 173: 6899: 4310: 8012:

be mentioned, but as a Featured Article, the League article is maintained pretty strictly, so it might be arguably under-inclusive in the name of keeping the highest level of sourcing.)

552: 6738:

Actually, I am convinced by the below arguments. CheckUser is Knowledge specific(no room for confusion), and new users may come across the term checkuser in the examples provided below.

3530:

There was no 'Biden crisis'. To create one could be read as (and will be used as) "Knowledge describes and confirms Biden's Crisis". Which is definitely not something we should support.

6727:

has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Knowledge namespace, would search up.

3768:

Just because a phrase is theoretically ambiguous does not negate the evidence of the current target being the clear primary topic. Unless you'd like to present such evidence of course.

2479: 2222: 1177: 4800:

Not mentioned in the target article. This concept is present in multiple titles within the Zelda series, so it is unclear if this redirect should target any specific article or not.

4194:

you relisted your own nom?? Chuterix had added mention to the target the day after the nomination, none of the relists were necessary, unless there was new concern with the changes.

4771: 1346: 948:. Search finds these uses among other less useful results: lists that mention the LG Optimus, and various pages where references contain the string "E610" in page numbers or URLs. 1183: 881:

While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as

7863: 1976: 541: 3833:. This redirect came from a page move, and the title was unsuitable for the page. Note also the redirect's history seems insignificant in spite of the tag, as it contains only 2654: 5804: 2819: 485: 6577: 2429: 2211: 1150: 5183:: What's the problem and what's your suggestion? I don't see a problem here, and "who said this line" is a helpful service. This was a very famous line for Jack Benny. —⁠ ⁠ 3594:— I concur with Bugghost. "Biden crisis" is a headline term that became a general term in reference to the events leading up to Biden's withdrawal, and it was used by NPR. 5247:

up at a page about a person, as opposed to an page dedicated to the quote they are searching for, will work for approximately ~0% of quotes in existence, and Knowledge is

4760: 2578: 5197:

The problem is exactly as I described. This is a redirect from a phrase which is not mentioned at the target article. People who search for this phrase will not receive

2500: 2251:

Unused. Chilodontidae is a former spelling (now regarded as incorrect) for a gastropod family. Chilodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family. See the

1217: 251: 8489:

and tag as meme. It's plausible that someone finds one of said shitposts, doesn't know how the original name is spelled, and searches "raymoo" to find info on Reimu.

3312: 7446: 4327: 3332:. I was about to nominate this myself a few days ago, but then changed my mind since apparently, the redirect may be an alternative name for the target per sources. 8077: 5228:

Just because Google might usually win a "who said this line" contest doesn't mean Knowledge shouldn't try to help people find the subject they're looking for. —⁠ ⁠

5124: 7420:

Trickle-down economics is not the exact same thing as tax cuts for the wealthy. Should be deleted as forcing readers to follow a redirect to an irrelevant place,

4406:, which does sort-of discuss ideological reasons why countries might be neutral? Not sure if I think this is a good target or not, but it deserves consideration. 4333: 1642: 1619: 3474:

I don't understand the "not adequately sourced" arguments, given that Bugghost presented more than adequate evidence that the term is used by reliable sources?

6105: 5931:

as well as the ArbCom case on it. I think the WikiProject would be a better primary topic, so the redirect follows the pattern of other WikiProject shortcuts.

5153:

A catchphrase not mentioned at the target article and provides no context to incoming readers, with the only allusion to this phrase being from one reference.

4182: 4151: 3630: 4365: 1590: 3763: 39: 34: 8125: 7454: 6539: 4962:

Fully written two-sentence long catchphrase of secondary characters no longer mentioned in the article. There are hundreds of ways of reaching the topic of

4683: 4350:

The phrase "neutrality of the state" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what in the target article the redirect is meant to define.

4122: 3500: 3422: 581:

About a day or so ago, sort of as a temporary measure until I could figure out a better course of action with this redirect, I had refined this redirect to

6510: 6298: 3453: 2548: 2403: 1946: 1518: 1453: 1413: 1100: 6327: 6078: 4302: 3802: 3601: 8311: 8151: 7515: 7203: 5113: 4843: 4393: 3539: 3483: 3347: 3252: 3061: 2750: 2590: 2357: 1864: 1306: 741: 714: 558: 120: 8330: 8234: 8042: 8021: 7534: 7394:

Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals

7217: 7208:

A good thing to convert to an article. Thanks for your suggestion! Hope this will help readers to know about the powerful security feature of the Wiki.

7054: 6767: 4966:

between Google and Knowledge searches, but this amount of specificity makes this unlikely and unhelpful, with nothing in the article or its references.

4096: 3365: 3324: 3283: 3230: 2536: 2494: 1046: 609: 8089: 5971: 5592: 3902: 3843: 3777: 2554: 1205: 8255: 7482: 7137: 6967: 6949: 6811: 6787: 6063: 6046: 5726: 5380: 5015: 4654: 3662: 3519: 3032: 2721: 2385: 2264: 1277: 412: 8276: 8201: 8178: 7083: 7017: 6913: 5999: 5677: 5668: 4815: 3940: 3554: 2693: 2673: 2596: 2228: 2203: 2132: 1661: 1562: 1171: 990: 564: 8789:

per Tavix. Plausible misspelling/mishearing with no other apparent meaning. If the term becomes ambiguous with anything else, I'd support deletion.

8537: 8510: 7555: 5747: 4454: 3822: 3467: 3184: 2678:

Not particularly. The redirects allude to groups of people who support for Donald Trump, not Donald Trump's views that could potentially be racist.

957: 533: 8586: 7788: 7590: 6873: 6479: 6267: 5755:

since the quote is joe-neric as heck and irrelevant in any other direct context notwithstanding the direct, meaningful connection to Steve Rogers.

4777: 4415: 4231: 4209: 1201: 1165: 924: 893:. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. 644: 7410: 7240: 7180: 6021: 5697: 5643: 5600:

per "results did actually mostly give me captain america, but deeming him the primary topic for a search of this nature would be like redirecting

5349: 5324: 5273: 5237: 5223: 5192: 5105: 3873: 2328: 2297: 2283: 1076: 1019: 8628: 8607: 8064: 7433: 7031:). That one was created by another well-established editor many years before that (2006). 1) Both are firmly "grandfathered-in" CNRs, and 2) per 6842: 5764: 5401: 5036: 4752: 3837:, which was immediately reverted and does not appear to be reflected in another page's history as copied from here (though I may be missing it). 3387: 2234: 1935: 1442: 1402: 940: 211: 8725: 7823: 7383: 7316: 3921: 3858: 3728: 3709: 3680: 3195:. I think that this should either be disambiguated or deleted, as I don't think the current redirect can be justified absent a primary topic. — 3006: 2103: 1492: 445: 185: 8664: 8498: 7104: 5940: 5888: 4783: 2779: 2072: 2050: 1853: 1249: 109: 7913: 3133: 8805: 8758: 8558: 5656: 5628: 5563: 5462: 5309: 4437: 4073: 3304: 3208: 2973: 2959: 757: 685: 8777: 8685: 8183:

Sorry if it wasn't clear, it was to indicate I supported the two options (keeping the redirect, or converting it to a disambiguation page).

7000: 6744: 3307:- all in headlines. If you broaden the search to "Biden's crisis" even more results for the same topic appear. It's also worth noting that 2870: 2017: 1988: 1788: 1734: 8831: 7764: 7661: 5873: 5491: 4083:(unicog_meta_v1.xlsx) and Nakamoto (1981:459-463) (図説琉球語辞典). Degi is a subarea of Okinoerabu (though information is very obscure; but see 8003: 7343: 5900: 5518: 5174: 4259: 1912: 378: 307: 8402: 7724: 4014: 2632:

Specific to the current target, the first redirect contains the phrase "President Donald Trump"; Donald Trump was not a President until

4625: 3243:

overwhelmingly going to be looking for the current target. If that changes in the future we can reevaluate the redirect at that point.

1797: 7989: 7095:. It takes readers to a different section of the encyclopedia, and it doesn't sit right with me to bring readers to non-reader pages. 7349: 6524: 6415: 6312: 6203: 5906: 5524: 4765: 1918: 833: 2929: 1394: 163: 8417: 6714: 5506: 2034: 101: 7366:

Should probably be deleted as non-neutral and poorly matched. While "tax cuts for the rich" are sometimes promoted as a method of

3821:). "Biden crisis" alone is a descriptive term with plenty of other possible targets, such as part of Biden's inauguration speech ( 2255:

dab page. Template redirect uses the spelling for the fish family to redirect to a stub sorting template for the gastropod family

7676: 6476: 6264: 6075: 5130: 2400: 1489: 7933: 4523: 1979:. Couldn't do it the usual way, because that assumes an AFD. If someone else can figure out how to do this better, please do. - 7688: 6442: 6230: 5587: 4592: 3787:. There are sources calling the events proceeding Biden's withdrawal a crisis, though many of those use the indefinite article 2488: 2216: 21: 8480: 6642: 3825: 1940: 1900: 1858: 1818: 1749: 1060:

or United Arab Emirates, but E610 doesn't appear (from our article) to have been assigned in either place (although both have

904: 8696: 8639: 8569: 8287: 8214: 7799: 7734: 7566: 7465: 7195: 7151: 7066: 6822: 5708: 5362: 5136: 4997: 4825: 4665: 4375: 4133: 4105: 3612: 3400: 3043: 3015: 2732: 2704: 2339: 2308: 2114: 2085: 1601: 1573: 1288: 1260: 1028: 968: 696: 655: 490: 4616:

enough to deserve a redirect of its own, like most other independent developers with notable games with their own articles.

8103:. Wouldn't be against it being mentioned on the main article, given that the crab is the first species to be named after a 7694: 7231:

per the above. While an article would be good if it's notable, keeping the redirect until one is written is the best here.

7109:

Please help me to understand your discomfort with this mere shortcut. It is only used on talk pages by editors who want to

6448: 6236: 4598: 7546:, someone searching for this phrase specifically will be able to find that article if that's where they wanted to go. -- 3819: 2542: 2158: 1952: 1459: 1419: 7025:

This is a useful CNR shortcut created by a well-established editor many years ago (2017) based on another CNR shortcut (

8197: 8147: 8121: 7009: 5988: 4709: 4041: 3191:, or any other "crisis" during the administration might be sought), and I don't suspect that any particular one is the 3160: 2584: 2374: 1870: 1761: 126: 17: 1159: 5979: 5948: 5924: 5844: 5693: 3444: 3188: 1958: 1465: 1425: 1064: 890: 334: 8452:

raymoo hackery is a name generally only seen in shitposts, and i'd honestly be surprised if anyone not nose deep on

6031:

or DAB given as noted the AC case is less relevant now though as noted to avoid breaking links a DAB might be best.

8650:

Momentum is swinging towards deletion, but additional opinions are welcome to help clarify if there is a consensus.

7392:- it's neutral (and even if it wasn't, redirects don't have to be neutral) and summarises the article's lead well: 6868: 4047: 3831: 3805: 3792: 3166: 1876: 1830: 1767: 1505:

would make the most sense, but without the wider usage on site it feels like keeping them for the sake of keeping.

919: 132: 7902:. After weighing the options and arguments it appears to me that keeping is the correct choice. Although there is 3864:

are looking for when they use other search terms, or what other people call this event make no difference at all.

6667: 4550: 2897: 1514: 340: 8850: 3296: 3183:

I feel like there are a lot of sorts of things one might expect to see when they search this term (for example,

3812: 3795: 3270: 1836: 628: 150: 6859: 5738:

per Hydrangeans. This phrase is widely associated with this character, at least to a large number of readers.

3300: 594:

issues since the target is about toys and not games. At this point, I'm thinking deletion is the best option.

357:

Looking at the history of this page, there has been a debate on whether or not Highway 407 should redirect to

7529: 7266: 6673: 5966: 5809: 5427: 4556: 2903: 1537: 362: 322: 7008:

redirect to non-reader content. A reader would not be affected by a checkuser outcome, unless they edit. --

6954:

I find it unreasonable to think that those two are things a new user would be likely to search for, and not

8751: 8530: 8473: 8429: 7450: 6902:

to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main-: -->

5621: 5556: 5342: 5302: 5266: 5216: 5167: 4980: 3702: 3655: 2999: 2661: 1687: 1057: 8598:

per nom. I doubt Knowledge would be the first place a person searching for info on Reimu would turn to. --

8456:

touhou rabbit hole knew about it. fittingly, not mentioned in the target, implausible as an actual search

7960: 6616:. Closing this as involved because an article has been created and this is not the proper venue anymore. 6473: 6261: 6072: 2397: 1486: 1241: 627:

is similar to the current target. I'm wondering about a disambig/broad concept article? The existence of

2530: 8435: 7337: 6928: 6883: 6054:

Currently, all links to the redirect involved this RFD, so no links are likely to be broken right now.

5894: 5583: 5512: 4029: 3448: 2572: 1906: 858: 114: 8822: 8377: 8347: 7966: 7889: 7840: 7637: 7607: 7509: 7442: 7287: 7257: 7199: 7134: 7051: 6772:

All Google results appear to be for Knowledge and I'm not sure if there is much non Knowledge usage.

6763: 6603: 6554: 6372: 6342: 6160: 6130: 5830: 5781: 5722: 5448: 5418: 5376: 5101: 5083: 5062: 5053: 5011: 4890: 4860: 4839: 4730: 4700: 4679: 4501: 4471: 4389: 4280: 4250: 4227: 4177: 4147: 4069: 3987: 3957: 3626: 3292: 3202: 3108: 3078: 3057: 2845: 2796: 2746: 2450: 2420: 2353: 2179: 2149: 2128: 1708: 1678: 1637: 1615: 1372: 1323: 1302: 1145: 1121: 1091: 1042: 828: 804: 774: 736: 710: 624: 511: 462: 277: 228: 79: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2024.

1539: 8846:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

8326: 7616: 7524: 6705:

It seems that somebody has converted the redirect into an article. I might withdraw my nomination.

6351: 6139: 5961: 5664: 4921: 3828: 2767: 931:

I think it would be best to turn it into a disambiguation page that links to those other articles.

864: 2617:

It's odd that a redirect with this phrasing targets 1 of 4 presidential campaign pages related to

6805: 6781: 6099: 6040: 5743: 5689: 3834: 3668: 3239: 1535: 7542:. I don't think this is a good redirect, basically per zxcvbnm. And since the phrase is used in 7401:. The article describes the topic as primarily tax cuts for rich people - it's a good redirect. 8193: 8143: 8117: 7543: 7367: 7331: 7325: 7013: 6963: 6909: 6470: 6258: 6069: 5995: 5882: 5500: 5465:. The phrase has been added to the article so it looks like consensus is going towards a keep. 4621: 3535: 3496: 2394: 2381: 1894: 1483: 620: 374: 8818: 8817: