Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9

December 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2020.

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


 * The result of the discussion was delete.  --BDD (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lydia Barrett → Amy Coney Barrett (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lydia_Barrett&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

There is no mention of "Lydia" at the target, making this connection tenuous. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Did a quick Google search, just in case there is a family member named Lydia. There is none. Apparently this might be a reference to Aunt Lydia and The Handmaid's Tale. (Maybe you knew this already, but I figured I'd share what I've learned. :-) ) Edge3 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I had assumed from a cursory search, but wasn't confident enough to report the details (I haven't seen The Handmaid's Tale yet, so I didn't know the reference and didn't want to dig deeper in case of getting spoiled). It's nice to get the reaffirmation! :-) -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete while there are some conspiracy theorists that associate Barrett with Aunt Lydia Snopes, there is not enough weight presented in news sources to show this nickname is lasting past the SCOTUS nomination process. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleteper explanation above--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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


 * The result of the discussion was speedy keep  . Withdrawing, justification provided. signed,Rosguill talk 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Xemone → Qasmuna (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xemone&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search doesn't suggest that this is an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 21:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Source: Ḳasmunah (sometimes called Xemone), Jewish Encyclopedia 7, p. 451. Kyuko (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

11th millennium BC
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Timeline of human prehistory. signed,Rosguill talk 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 11th millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 11th millennium BCE → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 12th millenium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_millenium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 12th millennium BCE → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 35th millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=35th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 34th millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=34th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 33rd millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=33rd_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 18000 BCE → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18000_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 12000 BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12000_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 13th millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=13th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 12th millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 120,000 years ago → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=120,000_years_ago&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 12,000 BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12,000_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 35,000 BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=35,000_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 15th millennium BCE → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 15th millennium BC → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 14th millennium BCE → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 13th millennium BCE → Late Pleistocene (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=13th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 32nd millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=32nd_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 31st millennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=31st_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 11000 BCE → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11000_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 11000 BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11000_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 20000 BCE → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20000_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 14th milennium BC → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14th_milennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 19th millennium BCE → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 18th millennium BCE → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 17th millennium BCE → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 16th millennium BCE → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16th_millennium_BCE&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 25th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=25th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 24th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=24th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 23rd millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=23rd_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 22nd millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22nd_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 21st millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 20th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 19th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 18th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 17th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * 16th millennium BC → Last Glacial Maximum (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 26th millennium BC → Upper Paleolithic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=26th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 27th millennium BC → Upper Paleolithic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=27th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 28th millennium BC → Upper Paleolithic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=28th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 29th millennium BC → Upper Paleolithic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=29th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 30th millennium BC → Upper Paleolithic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=30th_millennium_BC&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I would like to nominate a range of redirects to RFD. Since they have different targets, I would like community input on the best target for the redirects. Interstellarity (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Given that all the other dates redirect to timelines, it made sense if the earliest dates did as well. I asked the guy who redirected them from Timeline of human prehistory to Late Pleistocene and he said he didn't know. So I think it's safe to redirect them all to Timeline of human prehistory.  Serendi pod ous  19:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There are dates that redirect to Upper Paleolithic and Last Glacial Maximum as well. This discusssion seems relevant as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Some nominations were missing, I added them to the list at it looks like they were unintentionally removed in edit conflicts. Peter James (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural close – I shall !vote only if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're nominating these for: deletion? Retargeting? If so, where? Surely there is a burden on RfD nominators to actually propose something, or at least say what problem they want to discuss. Otherwise, I agree this open-ended discussion should be procedurally closed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify. I think all of these redirects should go to the same place. I'm neutral on where they should go, so I am open to what the community thinks where they should go. Interstellarity (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Timeline of human prehistory, which spans about 300,000 years into the past, except maybe delete 120,000 years ago, which doesn't fit an established convention and is so far back as to be arbitrary. My rationale for the choice of target is consistency with future millennia redirecting to Timeline of the far future. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to Timeline of human prehistory. I was expecting one with this many varying-target redirects to be pretty much a WP:TRAINWRECK, but that genuinely does seem to be a consistent target that works best for most, if not all, of these. Some of the other targets (Last Glacial Maximum etc) are actually perfectly reasonable and relatively accurate for those particular millennia, but are also potentially unduly specific, and Timeline of human prehistory covers the various overlapping major events that concern these date ranges. It may be there are one or two examples that really might be best targeted at something more specific, but consistently targeting everything in this range to the timeline page, as a default, is excellent for consistency. ~ mazca  talk 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Toc Chien
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete.  --BDD (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Toc Chien → League of Legends: Wild Rift (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toc_Chien&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is a case of WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Not the original language the game was developed for. Even vi:Liên Minh Huyền Thoại: Tốc Chiến shows the logo for Wild Rift. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of weapons in Perfect Dark
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete.  --BDD (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * List of weapons in Perfect Dark → Perfect Dark (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_weapons_in_Perfect_Dark&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

No list of weapons exists in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This was originally created as a (badly formatted and unsourced) list of the names of 8 weapons, but that should have been deleted per WP:CSD (The version deleted at Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark was a much longer list with context, description and (limited, poor quality) sources). As the content would meet a speedy deletion criterion if restored, there is no problem deleting it here (the redirect has never been discussed before so cannot itself be speedily deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Perfect Dark"
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep  . signed,Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perfect Dark" → Perfect Dark (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfect_Dark%22&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="Perfect Dark”">Perfect Dark” → Perfect Dark (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfect_Dark%22&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="Perfect Dark“">Perfect Dark“ → Perfect Dark (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfect_Dark%22&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The out of place quotation mark makes this implausible. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep" for the first two, as the title of the first game is stylized with similar marks after the name, but I'm unsure” about the third one since they face the other way. Regards, SONIC  678“  01:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as stylization. There are other media titles such as Dog Days (Japanese TV series)  that use ' and " for their sequel seasons. I don't know if the opening quotation mark format would be thrown in by search engine autocorrects, but I don't believe that would hurt.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ring action
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Module (mathematics). I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the subject matter to deal with any content additions that should follow this closure. Courtesy ping to  and  signed,Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ring action → Ring (mathematics) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ring_action&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

"Ring action" is not mentioned in the target article (the target section has been removed since several years). "Ring action" is not defined elsewhere in WP, so there is no available target. D.Lazard (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget to Module (mathematics) and tweak that article: The description was removed from Ring (mathematics), but I feel that a standalone description may belong in Module (mathematics). It just a more formal and precise name for the scalar multiplication, so at least it should be defined and named there.  —Quondum 19:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that the redirect has since been retargeted by a bot to Ring (mathematics). This too is acceptable to me, but we may consider tweaking this target section to define the name "ring action" (in addition to at Module (mathematics)).  —Quondum 14:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Will this be acceptable as an R without mention?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: In response to the relisting comment, I do not believe that this should be a redirect without mention: the term should be introduced into the target section (a variant of it is already there). A notification could be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and at Talk:Module_(mathematics) to generate more input.  It has already been posted at Talk:Ring (mathematics).  —Quondum 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Module homomorphism uses the term "ring action" and variants of it (e.g. "R-action", "right action of a ring", and the like). Ring (mathematics) uses the term "action of a ring".  Similar terms (e.g. "field action", "the ring acts") can also be found in some abstract algebra articles.  It seems reasonable that the redirect exists, but I am not tied to its existence: it gets used only a few times per month, and as the exact term "ring action" seems to be rare in the literature.  However, WP:Redirects are cheap, and we have three candidate target articles.  I would like to see comment from people who are more familiar with the topic, such as, who  a clear definition of the term that the redirect originally referenced and who nominated this redirect for discussion, and who is more knowledgeable than I am on this topic.  I see that it was I who created the redirect, but since I appear to be the only person who was pinged, I feel like I am talking to myself in a vacuum.  —Quondum 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "ring action" is rare in the literature, and I do not know of any reliable source that defines it. I believe that the terms has been introduces into WP by fans of universal algebra that were reluctant to consider algebraic structures involving two sets. The recent discussion at Talk:Algebraic structure may explain this. The fact that a "ring action" may be used for defining modules is clearly explained in Module (mathematics). However, the term of "ring representation" is used instead of "ring action". As far as I know, the term "ring action" is WP:OR. In any case, it is certainly never used for defining modules. One witness of this is that nobody uses a "field action" for defining a vector space. Another reason for not using "ring actions" for defining modules is that this would make cumbersome to define module homomorphisms.
 * So, except if a reliable source is provided, I consider the term "ring action" as a WP:OR concept, and I consider that it sould be removed from Wikipedia. However, as redirects are cheap, I suggest the following. D.Lazard (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Module (mathematics), an add to the target section: D.Lazard (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This certainly seems to be a good way to go, essentially to treat the redirect as a way to get to what is likely meant if this unusual term is encountered. We might, however, want to avoid appearing to define it as a term, and so might want to remove the bold.  —Quondum 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I have corrected my suggestion. D.Lazard (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Closing Act
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16%23Closing Act

Luv Is Rage songs
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Luv Is Rage. signed,Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yamborghini Dream → Lil Uzi Vert discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yamborghini_Dream&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Wit My Crew → Lil Uzi Vert discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wit_My_Crew&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Nuyork Night at 21 → Lil Uzi Vert discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuyork_Night_at_21&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Nuyork Night At 21 → Lil Uzi Vert discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuyork_Night_At_21&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Ballin' to the End → Lil Uzi Vert discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballin%27_to_the_End&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Former redirects to Luv Is Rage before that page's redirection; not mentioned in new target. Jalen Folf  (talk)  02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Luv Is Rage was restored as an article in March. (Whether or not that article should exist is a matter for AFD). "" and " don't appear to be the correct names of the songs on that album (should be "Nuyork Nights at 21" and "Ballin'" respectively). Added (alt capitalisation of redirect in original nomination). 61.239.39.90 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume these should redirect to Luv Is Rage unless there's consensus for another course (i.e., "no consensus" should result in (re-)retargeting there). --BDD (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to Luv Is Rage  Ballin to the End is one of the alias titles for Ballin Soundcloud   Delete Nuyork Night as that isn't the right title.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Big Freeze
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep  . There's broad agreement that, while both the old and the current target are reasonable, Heat death of the universe is more specific to the "freeze" aspect and remains the primary topic. ~  mazca  talk 14:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Big Freeze → Heat death of the universe (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Freeze&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect changed from Future of an expanding universe to Heat death of the universe. Both use the term conspicuously. Not sure if either is a better target or if the two articles should perhaps be merged. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The two possible targets are not equivalent. The future of an expanding universe has several different outcomes, only one of which is the Big Freeze, the heat death of the universe. There's also the Big Rip, and other more esoteric results. "Big Freeze" should target "heat death". "Future" should remain a separate article from heat death, as there has been much research and commentary on heat death, while "Future of an expanding universe" has other possible outcomes. It is also about the future of such a universe, including what comes before the heat death, and other paths of an expanding universe. Bear in mind there's also the article Ultimate fate of the universe, which also has the Big Crunch, and Big Bounce, etc. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment there's also a redirect which should be made to match wherever this redirect ends up pointing to. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Move Big Freeze (disambiguation) over Big Freeze if Big Freeze concerning the heat death is no longer the primary topic. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment if the disambiguation page is moved to the base location, this redirect's edit history should move to Big Freeze (cosmology) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as is the change to heat death was correct, as correctly noted by the IP user. I therefore object to replacing it with the DAB, as there is a clear primary topic. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. I agree with 67.70.26.89 and Footlessmouse - the current target is correct and the primary topic. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Heat death of the universe makes more sense as a target; as noted above, future of an expanding universe is more general. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect to Heat death of the universe: I concur with 67.70.26.89's description. —Quondum 02:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

History of the Jews in Svalbard
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete.  --BDD (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * History of the Jews in Svalbard → History of Jews in Norway (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Svalbard&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

While understandably Svalbard articles usually redirect to Norway, there's nothing about Svalbard in the article at all. This link is appearing on some templates as a blue link, and that seems misleading. CMD (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as it looks like we have nowhere to send readers to give them any information on this topic. History of the Jews in Norway doesn't mention Svalbard, while the Svalbard article doesn't mention Judaism either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there's stuff to be said about Jews in Svalbard, we should be encouraging article creation via WP:REDLINK. If, as it may be, there isn't any sourced encyclopedic information to offer at the moment, we shouldn't be pretending we do have some. ~ mazca  talk 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Plowback retained earnings
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was no consensus  . While it seems like the nominator did wait long enough between discussions for it to not be tendentious, there is still no consensus as to whether this redirect is appropriate or not signed,Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Plowback retained earnings → Retained earnings (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plowback_retained_earnings&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect: • 1 (no consensus)

• 2 (no consensus)

• 3 (no consensus) Plowback retained earnings is a made-up nonsensical phrase of considerable length and thus not a conceivable search term. None of the reasons for creating/maintaining redirects from WP:POFRED apply to it, and it fails the categorization test, i.e. none of our redirect categories apply to it. Wikipedia has no use for this page; its deletion is long overdue as per WP:RFD #8. The only reason it dodged WP:R3 is that it was originally created as a stub. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (as nom) Our policy dictates that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and in this case, the first guess would clearly be either "plowback" alone or "retained earnings" alone rather than a weird tautologous amalgamation of the two that has never been used outside of Wikipedia. Try as I may, I just couldn't come up with a single hypothetical scenario in which Plowback retained earnings would be a useful redirect. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominators do not get to !vote twice. Your nomination statement makes it sufficiently clear that you favour deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Involved editors don't "get to" strike through others' comments just because they disagree with their position. I have just as much right to participate in this discussion as you do; your redaction of my comment has been undone and I must ask that you do not repeat it. You are more than welcome, however, to address the points I've made. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't matter much either way, but it is in keeping with RfD norms for the nominator to not make a bulleted, bolded !vote on top of their nomination statement. signed,Rosguill talk 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that this is the fourth nomination of this redirect by the same editor, and closures of both the first two discussions were taken to DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Time to update Lamest edit wars! -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me of the deletion reviews; I believe that Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9 in particular might be worth taking a look at as it contains a table in which pretty much all of the possible arguments for and against retaining the redirect are clearly presented. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is unambiguous, harmless and there is plenty of evidence in the previous discussions that multiple people find this useful (all of which are reasons to keep a redirect). I strongly recommend dropping the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merely asserting the "usefulness" of a redirect isn't enough to prove that it's useful. Not a single hypothetical scenario has ever been presented in which this nonsensical redirect would be useful, nor could it ever be presented because the redirect is, in fact, utterly useless. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Asserting that you find the redirect useless does not prove that nobody does. Multiple people assert that it is useful, which satisfies WP:R point 5. If you want it deleted, you need to demonstrate that its presence is causing harm that outweighs the utility to those that find it useful - none of your arguments have demonstrated any harm (reasons why you do not like it are not evidence of harm). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pageviews analysis clearly shows that the redirect is useless, as does common sense analysis. A mere assertion that the redirect is useful, unsupported by a single example, is insufficient to negate that. We have multiple reasons for deleting redirects, one of them is WP:RFD #8, which clearly applies to the made-up term "Plowback retained earnings." You keep talking about "multiple people" finding the redirect useful; are you one of these people? If so, would you mind supplying us with a single hypothetical scenario in which the redirect would be useful? Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If plowback and retained earnings are the same or related it should be mentioned in the article, making this a useful combination for searching, and unnecessary as a redirect (also possibly misleading, by implying that this is a phrase that is used). As "plowback" or anything similar isn't mentioned there now it isn't useful as a redirect. Peter James (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Plowback" and "retained earnings" are synonyms. added plowback to the article in 2015, but it was removed in an October 2016 rewrite by  (note blocked sock). I went ahead and plowed it back in to the article, with a textbook reference using the two terms interchangeably. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 20:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep - this is the eighth time Iaritmioawp has started or restarted this same discussion with essentially the same argument. Here are the results of the previous seven:
 * (tagged for speedy deletion; redirected instead)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 10, closed as no consensus
 * Deletion review/Log/2014 December 25, result endorsed
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20, originally closed as no consensus
 * Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9, relisted for further discussion (the subsequent discussion also closed as no consensus)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 24, closed explicitly as "still no consensus"
 * Deletion review/Log/2016 February 4, speedy closed with this statement from : "If reading Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions didn't make my eyes glaze over, I would impose a topic ban on you right now. However good or bad this redirect might be, it is obvious that the community just doesn't agree with you, and the amount of effort-wasting you are causing by continually flogging this dead horse just isn't worth it. Don't push this anymore. Doing so is disruptive and if you continue with this, you will be blocked or banned from editing."
 * The target of this redirect is a fundamental business principle; it hasn't changed in centuries (certainly not in the four years since the most recent discussion) and isn't likely to change any time soon. Relitigating this again is nothing but disruption, this discussion should be speedy closed, and the nominator should be topic-banned from discussing this topic indefinitely to finally put an end to this complete waste of time.
 * Also, in what I'm sure will be a futile attempt to preempt the nominator's inevitable and relentless badgering, I am declaring now that this will be my final comment on this matter. I am unwatchlisting this page and will not read any replies to this comment. Enough of my time has been wasted on this over six damn years and I have better things to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Renominating for deletion recommends a two-month waiting period before restarting a discussion closed as "no consensus." I had waited not two but four, and not months but years. You accuse me of "disruption" but the only disruptive activity on this page is your unbecoming attempt to derail the discussion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is inherently disruptive. The last discussion was 24 January 2016, in other words almost five years ago. See ArbCom and ArbCom #2 (+ the principle below) on such conduct. Particularly, Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree and As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate after a reasonable period of time has passed. And, most importantly, Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. Reading just this RfD so far, the DRV and the latest RfD, I cannot see any points of substance being made other than, mostly, saying the nomination is disruptive. Is it not acceptable for an editor to ask the community, after five years, to hold another discussion to see if consensus has changed? Maybe it hasn't, but I don't see why the editor should be shamed for asking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't know redirect policy enough to comment on substance, but I think I've read enough to say this request doesn't seem obviously frivolous. Multiple uninvolved admins in the DRVs recommended deletion. One comment sticks out at me in particular: No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. [...] It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. So I think it's a little unfair to imply the nominator is acting in bad faith with frivolous deletion requests. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no way to defend this redirect on its merits as it's clearly bad. Thus, those in favor of keeping it have no choice but to resort to... well, the things you can see them resorting to above. Hopefully, the admin that closes this discussion will have enough common sense to see what's going on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Watch Doges
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete  . While there's an acknowledged Doge->Dog connection in general, participants unanimously feel that there's no specific enough connection from the Doge meme to Watch Dogs to warrant keeping this particular redirect. ~  mazca  talk 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Watch Doges → Watch Dogs (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watch_Doges&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not used in the target article and I generally suspect it's not an actual alternative title but instead some petty vandalism... Izno (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a popular meme. It also may be a plausible misspelling. Not sure if that's justification to keep or not... Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:PANDORA. There's no evidence that doge (meme) would be a plausible search for this game, and would imply that all "dog" articles would also be accessible using "doge".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, lest we set a precedent for making "doge" redirects for anything with "dog" in it. Doges Trust, anyone? Dominicmgm (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as not mentioned by news articles as a major example of Doge (meme). AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Villa record
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. Although there is not a strong consensus here, the arguments against disambiguation are clearer and stronger than those in favour. That leaves just keeping or deleting, and overall as there is a consensus against the status quo which produces a consensus in favour of deletion.  Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Villa record → List of Aston Villa F.C. records and statistics (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Villa_record&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s), could also refer to records set by people named Villa. I think that deletion is the best option here. signed,Rosguill talk 18:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't think of any circumstances under which someone would type in "Villa record" when searching for this article, so redirect is pointless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep These are the circumstances. I'm guessing you are not a Villa fan? If the reader was looking for a particular  Arsenal record, what would they type? In my own case, why would I not type Villa record? - in actual fact that is exactly what I did and I continue to use it. I struggle to remember the  longwinded target page title - people dont think this way: they type in the shortest description and hope for a direct hit. Surely the redirect makes Wikipedia more user friendly.   Surely (if ever) villarecord.com becomes notable, we simply create a disambiguation page.  JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, what a Villa fan searching for records would possibly search for Villa records or Aston Villa records, not this. GiantSnowman 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, so a Villa fan searching for a particular record would possibly search for Villa record or Aston Villa record. Firstly, you are using the No true Scotsman fallacy - I can assure everyone here that I am a true Villa fan. Secondly, as a "per nom" voter, can you not see the illogic in quite happily using Villa records while claiming Villa record could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s)?  You created the redirect Aston Villa records, I would appreciate your input here. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Meh I could see someone looking for David Villa records but I don't think anyone will be looking for that website on WP so I don't think that argument has any merit. That said, I also don't see anyone typing in "Villa record" to get to this page (figuratively or literally. Woody (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, the target is the only thing known as "Villa" to have a records page. I'm not worried about ambiguity, but if it is ambiguous I'm sure this is the primary topic. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Google. "Villa records" would be borderline, "Aston Villa record" would be benign, but this just doesn't seem like an organic way of searching for the topic. The one link at 1930–31 Aston Villa F.C. season should be piped regardless of outcome here. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or disambiguate. It's possible that this is the primary topic for "Villa records" (although "Aston Villa records" is more likely as "villa" has other meanings) but unlikely for "Villa record". Addio, addio is a Villa record, as is SC Villa. Peter James (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dabify convert to a disambiguation page -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose disambiguation, because there is no topic that would simply be called "Villa record" in an encyclopedic context. ---BDD (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there's too much confusion with this one. It's ambiguous and doesn't serve WP:POFR. Less Unless (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does serve WP:POFR not least as a short cut. Wikipedia may not be Google but that should not be an excuse to make Wikipedia less user friendly. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The combination of the (moderate) ambiguity and the singular form of the word 'record' combine to make this an unnecessarily confusing redirect that is not useful enough as a shortcut to outbalance that. Disambiguation also seems inappropriate because it basically would involve nothing but partial or ambiguous matches. ~ mazca  talk 13:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cytopharynx
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Cytostome. (non-admin closure) <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ChristianKl with the reason "Cytopharynx is not a synonym for Esophagus, it's a feature of unicellular organisms"  F ASTILY   02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cytopharynx → Esophagus (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cytopharynx&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Retarget to Cytostome. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cytostome per as this page mentions "Cytopharynx" and that it seems to be the appropriate target. Also, tag the page with .  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that retargeting makes sense. ChristianKl  ❪✉❫ 11:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The man behind the slaughter
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete  . There's clearly a connection between the redirect and the target, but consensus is clear that this is far too tenuous and ambiguous to warrant a redirect here, and there are no clear better targets. ~  mazca  talk 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The man behind the slaughter → Five Nights at Freddy's (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_man_behind_the_slaughter&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

A line from the fanmade FNAF song "It's Been So Long" by The Living Tombstone, which became a somewhat popular meme in the FNAF community earlier this year. However, the song It's Been So Long does not have its own article, and neither does The Living Tombstone. If they're not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, this redirect should be deleted. And the phrase "the man behind the slaughter" is not an official canon alias for William Afton, but a redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's implies that its canon, which is untrue. ThisIsSparta2007 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too ambiguous. Dominicmgm (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm getting searches for Pat Patterson (wrestler) instead, associated with Sergeant Slaughter AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. My first thought was someone would be looking for information about a person responsible for ordering or enabling a large number of deaths in (para)military or political campaigns, e.g. one of the people listed at the Butcher of the Balkans dab but obviously not limited to just that one epithet or even just that part of the world. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.