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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:CSD G6, redirect created while cleaning up an unambiguous error. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Spacing mistake that I think is a relatively implausible redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Page was barely at target and it came out a typo in initial page naming. It's unlikely external links would've been established to the article under the name Tau(artist) as it was at that title for under 2 hours. Tartar Torte 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 procedural close. The requested move can determine the primary topic issue. If the writer is the ptopic, then the base name will go to that article. If it is determined that there is no ptopic, then the base name will title the disambiguation page. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^put'r there 16:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Richard Fielder → Richard Fielder (disambiguation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I was trying to do a round robin move of Richard Fielder (writer) to this page but didn't realise I didn't have sufficient permisions. MEQCallaghan ( talk) 11:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This is probably the wrong venue for this as this is more a requested move than a redirect change because it would be improper to have Richard Fielder go to Richard Fielder (writer); instead Richard Fielder (writer) would be moved to Richard Fielder. In that case it is likely best off as a WP:Requested move to propose that Richard Fielder (writer) be moved to Richard Fielder. There is a different avenue for non-controversial moves, but I don't personally think the writer is necessarily WP:PTOPIC, so this is likely best handled as a requested move. Tartar Torte 15:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  I guess it doesn't seem to me to be WP:PTOPIC, since there isn't another notable person with this name. I originally created the page because the previous article in that namespace was a cricketer who played a few games in the 1800s that only had one source, but it was being linked to from a television show page. Since I've renamed the cricket page, I thought it would make sense to close the loop and rename the writer so as to drop the clarification since it doesn't seem to serve a purpose (in my view). MEQCallaghan ( talk) 13:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• William A Whalen → Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 08:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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) 14:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Saridharam → Sarnaism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Sari Dhorom → Sarnaism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Delete unless there is clarity on whether Saridharam is an alternate name for Sarnaism. This (Saridharam) was deleted at RfD last week, but was re-created as an article by the same creator, and following a speedy deletion, was re-created as a redirect pointing to this new target, which is different from the previous RfD, and hence ineligible for WP:G4. This need not be salted (for now) as the original creator has been blocked. Jay 💬 06:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Also bundled Sari Dhorom, and this may be listed for another week. Jay 💬 10:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: Saridharam seems to potentially mean Sari Dharam based on some searches, but I am not fully sure. If it is, then I could only find one source that mentions Sari Dharam. To quote, Santal numbers are close to the Bengali population in the country’s north. They identify themselves as followers of Sari Dharam, while others say they are part of Sarna. The Santal people from West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand also identify themselves as Sarna. Both of these are ancient nature-worshipping faiths of the Indian subcontinent, said Manik, who was born in a Santal family. That is the only potential source I could find confirm. (The book, Contemporary Society: Tribal Studies Volume Seven Identity, Intervention and Ideology in Tribal India and Beyond might be a possible source as well, but I could not verify the information if there is a mention of either Sari Dharam or Saridharam.) (Amended 03:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC) by Super Goku V ( talk))

For mentions on the wiki: There is one at Nature worship, but that is by the original redirect creator; The Purulia district article does mention Saridharam in the Religion section, but as seen in this edit, it did not originally say that as it was modified later on by the original creator; Tribal religions in India mentions Saridharam, but that was modified by the original creator; Finally, it is listed at List of ethnic religions, but the link there goes to the redirect Santhal religion, which ends up at Santal people#Religion without a mention of Saridharam. And that one was modified by an IP user. Every mention of it on the Wiki is by the original redirect creator or an IP and is either unsourced or improperly sourced in one case, so no retargeting is possible that I can see. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 08:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that bdnews link. It does look like Sari is a faith different from Sarna. Note that Sari dharam was also created by the same creator and subsequently moved to Draft:Sari dharam where the content is available in the pre-BLAR history, in case an editor wants to work on it. Jay 💬 14:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding the above mentions, I have removed the mention from Nature worship, Purulia district, and Tribal religions in India, and removed piping and link from List of ethnic religions. Jay 💬 10:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete for lack of well-supported usage on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I haven't looked into this myself, but the findings of Super Goku V show that, based on the little available information, Saridharam is likely different from Sarnaism. – Uanfala ( talk) 10:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• New Channel Ten morning program → Studio 10  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect targeting Studio 10, should be deleted, because it’s no longer a new program. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 05:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a redirect from a move that happened in 2013, and seems directly analogous to the "Upcoming..." redirects. Page views (none this year, 13 in the whole of 2022) indicate that people are not routinely using this. Additionally Channel 10 and linked pages indicate that there are several dozen stations known and/or branded as Channel 10 or similar and it's highly plausible that more than one of these will have (now or in the future) a new morning program. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Window Vista → Windows Vista  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Some other similarly formatted redirects were already a part of last week's deletion discussion, in which they have all been deleted. But I just realized this one's still there, so it's gotta get the ax too. Should be speedy deleted in this case. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 02:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the previous discussion, but I can't see any speedy deletion criterion that applies (the G6 nomination was correctly declined by Liz). Thryduulf ( talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the nom. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 18:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• CIA activities in Brazil → 1964 Brazilian coup d'état  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Possibly too broad for the target article, which is about a specific event in Brazil with known CIA involvement. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak retarget to Brazil–United States relations during the João Goulart government, which seems to be the broadest Brazil-related article listed in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:CIA activities in the Americas. Duckmather ( talk) 04:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WP:REDYES. There's a number of different examples of CIA activity in Brazil. While the article about the US's involvement in Brazil during Goulart's government covers some of it, there's more to be covered than just that and it seems this is a great candidate to be an article itself. Tartar Torte 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:REDYES. While there is some involvement by the CIA (covert support for street protests?) mentioned in the article, I think it would be better as a redlink to encourage creation of the broad topic article itself. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 23:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 and retarget.

• Keep United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1793
• Keep United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1796
• Retarget United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820 to 1820–1821 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1793 → 1793 United States Senate special election in Pennsylvania  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1796 → 1797 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820 → 1820–21 United States Senate elections  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete all, as there was no "United States Senate special election in Pennsylvania, 1793" and the redirect was previously targeted to the already deleted "1793 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania" which was in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums. "United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1796" and "United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820" were wrongly created. Santiago Claudio ( talk) 00:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: I added United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1796 and United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820 to this discussion. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820 to 1820–1821 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania This is the individual article for this election. Based on the page histories, I say keep the other two given they are redirects from moves and also tag as {{ R avoided double redirect}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• I'm having a hard time understanding the rationale of these nominations. Definitely retarget United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1820 to 1820–1821 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania and keep the other two, per the above. A7V2 ( talk) 23:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).