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. Author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Visa scandal → Polish cash-for-visa scandal  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Seems vague and ambiguous as ‘Visa scandal’ isn't specific to Poland and/or the target. However, a Google search for this term does yield results for this Polish scandal that's apparently been in the news recently, but when I scrolled further, I also found a result for an Australian related news article, which had nothing to do with the target article's scandal in question. Fork99 ( talk) 23:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Further comment: Seemingly created as a direct translation of the Polish term “Afera wizowa” according to this discussion: Talk:Polish cash-for-visa scandal#Page title: Is "Visagate" appropriate? Fork99 ( talk) 23:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as creator of the redirect. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Visa affair → Polish cash-for-visa scandal  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Seems vague and ambiguous. A Google search doesn't yield any results for this particular target's scandal that's apparently been in the news recently. I propose deletion unless a better target can be found. Fork99 ( talk) 22:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Further comment: Seemingly created as a direct translation of the Polish term “Afera wizowa” according to this discussion: Talk:Polish cash-for-visa scandal#Page title: Is "Visagate" appropriate? Fork99 ( talk) 23:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as creator of the redirect. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. G4 CSD (non-admin closure) 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Ya like jazz? → Bee Movie  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Previously deleted under Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Ya like jazz? and still not mentioned at target. Fork99 ( talk) 22:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Would this not qualify for speedy delete per G4? - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 01:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes it would. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 04:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Ss-pinene → Β-Pinene  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Nonsensical User:Eubot redirect. Delete. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, Ss is an alternative for ß. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Changed to Delete after finding out it's actually beta, not an eszett. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The character is β (beta) not ß (German sharp S). Beta-Pinene. See, for instance, [1]. Not only is the redirect implausible, it also facilitates this error and thus should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Strictly nonsensical mistaking of a beta for an eszett. Considering this was created by a bot, it might be worth looking into their other mass-created redirects that do this. XTools has timed out several times trying to gather this info, so I'll leave this work to anybody else willing. ArcticSeeress ( talk) 11:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

This was auto-created due to ß-pinene (with an eszett), which was previously nominated and kept 10 years ago under the assumption that it is easier to write on most non-Greek keyboards. Each of the entries in the 10-year old RfD seems to have an ss- version which may be nominated under the same rationale as this one. Randi🦋 ^Talk _Contribs 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Right, it's an attempt at an {{ R from ASCII-only}} for the Ezzet. I'm fine keeping ß-pinene as a misspelling, as it could be confused for β-pinene, but we really don't need the ASCII version. Eubot doesn't do anything anymore, which is good I think, but yeah, I think it created ß and Ss redirects for anything where there was a beta redirect. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, the idea that ß is easier to type than β seems ridiculous- they are both just as difficult (or easy if you know your unicode- I suppose it depends on which people work with more. For non-German chemists, it's β. For those who know German, it might be ß). Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Doidld Tyatsmr → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is a transliteration of "Donald Trump" in Faux Cyrillic. Implausible. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• This also seems to be from Reddit, which the creator has a history with. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 18:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete and send to WP:DAFT per nom. Duckmather ( talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above and possibly send to WP:DAFT. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Institute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic Technologies of the Siberian Branch оf the RAS → Russian Academy of Sciences  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Although this is the Russian Academy of Sciences, and this redirect was left over from a move to the correctly scripted version Institute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic Technologies of the Siberian Branch of the RAS (the result of which was later moved to the current title), I'm not sure it's plausible to have a Cyrillic О (the last one) in this Latin-script title (especially since the other Os are Latin). I would like this redirect to be deleted for that reason (R3 was declined, since the target page has aged out of "recently created" territory). Regards, SONIC ⁶⁷⁸ 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: This is a textbook example somewhere but I'm not sure where. Implausible either way. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 18:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ ClydeFranklin WP:MIXEDSCRIPT is probably what you're looking for. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yup. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:MIXEDSCRIPT: implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Untitled Detective Pikachu sequel → Detective Pikachu (video game)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Please retarget this to either Detective Pikachu Returns or Detective Pikachu (film)#Sequel. 99.209.40.250 ( talk) 14:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete, untitled redirects are WP:COSTLY given their maintenance burden when something does become titled. Kill it now while we're here. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  I agree with you, now we don't need this anymore. 99.209.40.250 ( talk) 13:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Tavix: if the redirect is not deleted now it will be deleted anyway when the sequel gets a title per WP:UFILM. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, maintaining a redirect for any future sequels that are currently "untitled" is not worth. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 01:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above and WP:COSTLY. 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:BCA2:1318:9A0B:FC6D ( talk) 18:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. A disambiguation page can still be made via a hatnote, but Vince appears to have received consensus in regards to being the primary topic. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Coach Lombardi → Vince Lombardi  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Ambiguous search term which could also refer to NFL offensive coordinators Mick Lombardi and Joe Lombardi. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Ambiguous, not useful. Jweiss11 ( talk) 14:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, clear primary topic. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Convert to disambiguation page, something like this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have no doubt that Vince Lombardi is the more prominent "Coach Lombardi", but in terms of usefulness of the redirect, I think that I'd prefer a disambiguation page because of how often offensive coordinators end up being discussed in the news. After all, this will be Joe Lombardi's fifth year as an OC and 18th year coaching in the NFL. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  How close are any of the other Lombardis to having "considered by many to be the greatest coach in football history, and [...] recognized as one of the greatest coaches and leaders in the history of all American sports" as a reliably sourced descriptor in the first paragraph of their bios, or having their sport's top league's championship trophy named after them? Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don't doubt anything you say. But also note that two of these coaches are coaching today and are in the news. From my perspective, disambiguation probably helps the reader navigate easier and quicker. Honestly, Vince Lombardi is so well-known, that I doubt that too many people are searching for "Coach Lombardi" to go to "Vince Lombardi". I feel like "Lombardi" is probably a more likely search term for Vince Lombardi. Just my gut feeling tho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I feel the same way as Gonzo. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Well, rather than all of us offering anecdotes we could go by pageviews. I looked at each title for the month of November 2022, to try to account for the effects of the NFL season being in full swing. The daily average pageviews for that month: Vince Lombardi 1,485; Joe Lombardi 778; Mick Lombardi 106. For July 2023 those numbers are 889/151/37. It ought to be quite convincing that Vince consistently pulls this much more attention by pageviews, considering the other two are discussed in the news often while he's been dead for 53 years. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 19:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'm not 100% sure how page views comes in to play. This isn't a discussion about whether one person is the primary topic or not. Obviously, Vince Lombardi pull smore page views then the other two articles (although, honestly, not as much as I would had thought). The question is whether it is clear cut that people searching for the term " Coach Lombardi" are primarily expecting to find Vince Lombardi. I think the general term "Coach Lombardi" is ambiguous enough that a disambiguation page is warranted. This allows the reader to select the right person they want to read about instead of relying on hatnotes catching their eye and using them to navigate to the right article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Tavix: Vince Lombardi is pretty clearly the primary topic. Do not disambiguate; disambiguation can be handled by hatnotes at the target. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 14:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Tavix and Ivanvector. Clear primary topic. Hatnotes are sufficient for disambiguation purposes. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 18:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate per Gonzo. I feel that the search term is sufficiently ambiguous that hatnotes, although a workable outcome, are not the best outcome. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete (revised from struck !vote above) per speedy criterion G5: creator has been banned as a sockpuppet of a very long-term abuser. The redirect has only existed for 10 days, and there's no clear evidence here that the title is particularly useful: there is currently no disambiguating hatnote at the likely primary target, and it had only been viewed six times (which includes probably at least two by the creator) before it was nominated for discussion. My feeling is that most readers looking for information on one of these coaches will already know that they're a coach and just search their name, but if it's actually useful someone else can recreate it. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 14:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy Ivanvector. If this discussion is closed as Delete because of the sock creation, I will immediately recreate as a disambiguation page and we will be right back where we started. Why not just state your opinion on the redirect now to save everyone the time and energy of going through another discussion in a few days at a different venue again? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I was under the impression that this was a redirect that had been created by someone who believed in good faith that it was useful, and that it had been around for some time. My own fault for not checking, but the fact that it was created a week ago by a banned editor who was mass-creating largely inappropriate redirects is new information (to me) which changes my evaluation of its usefulness. Besides, if it were [re]created as a disambiguation page, it would go against WP:PTM; disambiguation pages aren't for manually compiling search results. I'm not sure that a set index is warranted, either. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 19:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This was originally deleted under G5, upon which I requested an undeletion given the !keep votes, which was granted deferring to the RFD. See User talk:Garralaga#August 2023. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, estar8806 ( talk) ★ 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dabify per Gonzo; note, it should not be using hndis, but rather, {{ disambiguation|tndis}} for title-name disambiguation -- 65.92.244.99 ( talk) 11:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per common name, discussion, and per it's Coach Lombardi for Starr's sake! Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 17:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep (un-revised !vote) per the same rationale I originally gave above ("per Tavix", etc.) as the page already was G5-deleted and recreated. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Dab it. I realise that Vince is by far the most historically significant of the Lombardis, and I certainly have great respect for argument that that is enough, but I think – weakly – that given the other 3 combined approach Vince on pageviews we have to go down the dab route here. Normally moderately opposed to dab page of the form "Coach XXXXX", but most of those don't have anywhere near the pageviews of the referrents as in this instance. J947 † ^edits 03:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a rediect, Vince Lombardi is the primary topic. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Vince Lombardi per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Readers who will most benefit from the redirect are the ones who do not already know who the historically significant individual is and might not be able to pick them out of a disambiguation page. — siro χ o 18:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).