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. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• YOU crank that souljah boy → Crank That (Soulja Boy)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Only 10 pageviews over 6 months, and i can't find anything about this phrase on the page or from a google search. dud hhr _Contribs 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If "Souljah" is considering a reasonable misspelling of "Soulja", the redirect should be kept. p b p 06:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• DAFT and delete: Sounds like a threat, would also nominate YOU crank that soulja boy for similar reasons. 70.174.74.215 ( talk) 20:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

IP has made only a handful of edits

It makes sense if you've listened to the song p b p 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Souljah Boy already redirects to the artist page. I'm not against redirecting well-known lyrics to their songs, but I'm skeptical of this one given the idiosyncratic formatting and spelling. And such redirects are most helpful when a reader may not know the correct name of the song, e.g., Teenage Wasteland. But in this case, both the song title and artist name are already there. -- BDD ( talk) 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment It seems like the goal here was to use all-caps to reflect the emphasis of this recurring lyric and then have top predicted search hits reveal to searchers the song and adtist (as BDD explains). I have no strong feelings either way, but I would feel better about the properly spelled YOU crank that soulja boy. But it's not like we have an entry for this song at YOU (a redirect to You (disambiguation)). Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete since the properly spelled version of the redirect exists (which I did not anticipate when I posted above) and fulfills the apparent goal here. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to allow the November 18 log page to be closed. Seems that consensus has already been reached, since participants have agreed that deletion is the most viable solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Lion of the Senate → Ted Kennedy  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The late Bob Dole has also been described as such. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep As far as I can tell, Bob Dole was referred to as a "lion of the Senate" in an obituary, but never before. Dole's bio does not include the word "lion". Ted Kennedy was referred to as the "Lion of the Senate" while he was still alive. There's at least one biography with it in the title, an exhibit with the title at the Edward M Kennedy Institute, and his bio page uses the nickname. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now the evidence provided appears to demonstrate that Kennedy is more associated with the term than Dole though if the in the future Dole starts to be regularly referred to as lion of the Senate we can create a dab page.-- 67.70.101.149 ( talk) 22:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ✗ plicit 14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Pizza Day → History of Bitcoin  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Article contains no mention of Pizza Day. Serendi ^pod ous 12:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Growth, Subsection 2021. I had written a Pizza Day article several weeks back, and another editor -I forget whom- felt that its mention in a table on the Bitcoin article proper was sufficient. kencf0618 ( talk) 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mentioning the event that inspired Pizza Day is not the same thing as mentioning Pizza Day. What is Pizza Day? Is it actually observed? Serendi ^pod ous 14:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Implausible search term - yes there was an event where someone paid a few thousand Bitcoin for a slice of pizza in 2011, but I am not sure if this event even merits inclusion in the Bitcoin history article. Aasim ( talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete there are many pizza day topics in different topic areas -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ✗ plicit 14:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The Greatest Pianist of All Time → Glenn Gould  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

With all due respect to Glenn Gould, I don’t think it’s appropriate to redirect this lofty title to him and him only. A quick search will show that we also describe Vladimir Horowitz, Martha Argerich, Arthur Rubinstein, and Sviatoslav Richter as considered or regarded among the greatest pianists of all time (whereas the Gould introduction limits its praise to “of the 20th century” in the current revision). I haven’t been able to find a more appropriate redirect target – there are lists of pianists, but nothing comparable to e.g. list of films considered the best, apparently. Maybe the redirect should just be deleted? Galaktos ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete: Vague title at best, unambiguous promotion at worst. Aasim ( talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  And... I tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. Aasim ( talk) 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but not speedy: It's a silly redirect, but given that Glen Gould has been dead for 40 years, it's hard for me to see unambiguous promotion here. Also letting this go through the process makes it easier to delete if it's recreated.---- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Good point. I removed the speedy tag. Aasim ( talk) 03:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 04:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Monkey vs. scopes trial → Scopes Trial  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This does not seem to be a legitimate name for the subject - Scopes was not going against the monkeys. Hog Farm _Talk 06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I'm split on this one. It is commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial so I could conceivably see someone misconstruing that as Scopes v. Monkey or I guess this version of it, which is Monkey vs. Scopes. I wouldn't have created this redirect on my own, but I understand how it came to be and I guess this could be a {{R from incorrect name}}. The page history shows that this was originally a poorly written duplicate of Scopes Trial before it became a redirect, which makes me think that this misnomer is at least plausible, even if uncommon. snood1205^{( Say Hi! (talk))} 13:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete seems to be misleading. It's probably not a good idea to compare The State of Tennessee to monkeys. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Lenticel. Misleading and confusing title. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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 Missouri#Culture. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Culture of Missouri → Culture of the Southern United States#Missouri  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Wouldn't Missouri#Culture be a better target? Hog Farm _Talk 06:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Missouri#Culture is probably substantial enough to break out as a separate article at the title under discussion, also incorporating the content of the current redirect target. BD2412 T 06:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Missouri#Culture. Creating an article over the title is not really a questions for RfD. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 09:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Oiyarbepsy: I disagree, and I've resolved discussions that way more than once. BD2412 T 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Missouri#Culture - Missouri article has more information about the state's culture than the Culture of the Southern United States article. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment this should hatnote the Missouri tribe and their culture -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is not clear if BD2412 was supporting or opposing the retarget, or only suggesting to replace the redirect with content incorporated from Missouri#Culture and Culture of the Southern United States#Missouri.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Missouri#Culture as a more appropriate redirect target. If there is interest in creating an article at this page, there can subsequently be a WP:SPLIT discussion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Tau Epsilon Chi → TeX  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No indication why greek letters would be used to refer to a typesetting system Naraht ( talk) 06:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Leaning keep, the target article states The letters of the name are meant to represent the capital Greek letters tau, epsilon, and chi which would be the connection; Google suggests that there's a couple NN fraternities/sororities known by this name, but the typesetting system appears to be the most common meaning based on my searches. Hog Farm _Talk 07:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Hog Farm's reasoning. This is something every TeX user learns. Should the fraternities/sororities become notable, a hatnote or a disambiguation page would be warranted. But for now TeX the program seems the dominant target. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 19:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. See the opening paragraph on Page 1 of The TeXbook: https://imgur.com/a/xWYGwwy. See also the 1979 book TAU EPSILON CHI: a system for technical text. Shreevatsa ( talk) 06:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 07:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Slick Rick (radio) → 9TV#News anchors and hosts  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I just went through a bunch of redirects that pointed there and out of them all there were two where the person was not included at the new target ( CNN Philippines#Hosts and News Anchors) so I would like to propose these two as they are not even in the list that the other redirects are now pointing to. Also this one was already approved for a speedy delete in the past Signed, I Am Chaos ( talk) 06:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 07:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Jinno Rufino → 9TV#News anchors and hosts  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

See above except the last sentence Signed, I Am Chaos ( talk) 06:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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. Hog Farm _Talk 07:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Template:Subdivisions of Ethiopia → Template:First-level administrative divisions of Ethiopia  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused template redirect. Platonk ( talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not cover all subdivisions of Ethiopia -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Tetradioxin → 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Implausible redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:5562:3537:93F8:26B ( talk) 02:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: it's listed in the article as a synonym, which agrees with the pubchem entry for this substance, and I see this synonym notes in a variety of US and state documents. DMacks ( talk) 03:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep: There is nothing to suggest this is an implausible redirect. There needs to be explanation as to why the title is implausible. Aasim ( talk) 03:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DMacks. Seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect when the main article's infobox specifically lists it as an alternate name. -- Zander251 ( talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

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. ✗ plicit 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• List of talles structures in Kosovo → List of tallest structures in Kosovo  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Leftover from page move, existed for two minutes, implausible typo MB 00:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: We are not here to redirect every single typo or misnomer to their subject articles; search does that already through "did you mean" headers. Aasim ( talk) 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This redirect would not even exist in the first place if the target article had been created with the correct title to begin with, and on the off chance that someone actually did search for this redirect's exact title, it is close enough to the real article's title that the search menu will find that article anyways. -- Zander251 ( talk) 05:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all the votes above. Highly implausible redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:E19B:3347:C471:CA09 ( talk) 03:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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.