Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12

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. Jay 💬 05:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What do tigers dream of when they take a little tiger snooze? → The Hangover  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as an unlikely search term not mentioned at target. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find what the redirect has to do with the target. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above; unlikely search term that is probably unrelated to the target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's definitely related to the target since it's a quote from the movie: [1]. I'm unsure if it rises to the level of general interest to have a redirect given it's not mentioned at the target and it might not be DUE to do so. Skynxnex (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not mentioned at q:The Hangover either, so not feasible to soft retarget there. TartarTorte 21:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The quote is absolutely related to The Hangover but it is indeed an unlikely search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 14 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Thought there was consensus against these forms of redirects, was clearly wrong. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 03:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Johnson (Judge) → Robert Johnson (judge)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Capitalized disambiguator. Is from an move, but was only at that title for 6 hrs, so don't think that's an issue. Surprised this doesn't constitute any CSD (at least I don't think so). ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - pretty plausible capitalisation I would imagine. No conceivable benefit from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable enough capitalization --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A7V2 and Lenticel. It's helpful, unambiguous, and will get readers to their destination (they might even hold the ⇧ Shift key for too long). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: An improper capitalization on the disambiguator is not an unreasonable redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 14 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 restore and send to AfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Trio (1997 film) → Park Chan-wook  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Now it's just a redirect to a director's page. I created an article about this film but my edit was undone by another contributor. We either should leave an article or we have to delete the page because now it's just misleading. Trio (1997 film) is not Park Chan-wook himself, it's his film. Okeanium (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the best solution here is to restore the article and send to AFD. The article was sourced, but one editor made a bold decision to BLAR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the userpage of the BLARer, it doesn't seem impossible that they simply didn't like it for quality reasons. The sourcing looked passable, and Korean sources seem to provide even more information. I second the vote to restore the article and send to AFD, where it can hopefully be improved to everyone's satisfaction. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As the user who made the BLAR, I will vouch that the version I reverted did not have any sources, while I can see that other voters might be looking at another sourced version from before this latest attempt. In this case, per the other users' arguments, I would have to say Restore and send to AfD, but restore the version by page creator dated December 2022. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the December version [2] (which has sources) as a disputed WP:BLAR. A7V2 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the article back in December, but it was turned into a redirect as it had "not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG". I would restore this December version.Dotoilage (talk) 09:55, 13 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. Jay 💬 05:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Window 11 → Windows 11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just like with the other singular "Window" redirects, this one should be deleted too. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree it seems consensus is on the side of deletion across multiple redirects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Well...Disagree. The other instances—Window 7, Window 8, Window 10—were deleted by the same editor all on 24 March 2019. There was no discussion, just an opinion on the part of the editor that the redirects shouldn't exist. I don't see a problem in retaining the redirect as it is a plausible typo, in disagreement with the editor who deleted the other redirects. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made deletion discussions for the others last month and those were deleted too. Colgatepony234 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colgatepony234: thanks for the referral - I'll withdraw my disagreement based on this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:44, 15 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. Jay 💬 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Turdus simensis, → Groundscraper thrush  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary punctuation Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The IOC, whose taxonomy the Birdproject follows, has made the bird, the Ethiopian thrush, distinct from groundscraper thrush , in the latest update, please remove redirect.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This predates commaless Turdus simensis by ~3 months, being made by the same author. Seems very plausible that putting in the comma in the end was a mistake, placing this under WP:G6 speedy deletion criteria. @Pvmoutside: could you confirm if putting in the comma was a mistake rather than intentional? Randi Moth (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:49, 13 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BVM Racing → Minardi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"BVM" isn't mentioned in the article but there are several mentions in Enwiki, and Category:BVM Racing drivers. Is there a better target? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• By the looks of it, BVM is a junior team that used to be associated with/sponsored by Minardi. Obviously Minardi got bought out, but BVM is still around and racing in lower formula series. It may or may not deserve its own article, but shouldn't redirect to Minardi since it is an entirely distinct entity. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 5225C since it's obviously misleading. CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is nothing about this at the target. If it turns out some discussion of BVM is appropriate there then the redirect could easily be recreated. A7V2 (talk) 05:02, 13 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. Jay 💬 05:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Polished rice(medical) → Rice#Preparation as food  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Polished rice redirects to White rice, but I'm not seeing anything specifically "medical" related there, nor another topic that would be medical. Either way, the lack of space before the disambiguator is problematic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; lack of space before the disambiguator. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 13 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 retarget to Baker Island. Consensus to unrefine. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Transportation in Baker Island → Baker Island#Description  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest deletion. Was marked as a speedy delete under CSD:G1, but did not consider this to be patent nonsense. Rather, the target is an unihabited island that has no transportation infrastructure, apparently, looking at the target section. Thus - misleading. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and unrefine. While it's true that the island is currently uninhabited, it used to have an airstrip and a lighthouse, and they're described in multiple sections of the target article. My only reservation is the unusual choice of preposition ("in" instead of "on" or "of"), but the redirect has been in place for over 20 years without issue. It's harmless. - Eureka Lott 04:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Unrefine per EurekaLott. Seems reasonable enough. I don't have an issue with "in" since Baker Island is also a territory. A7V2 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question by 'unrefine' you mean remove the hash-targeting of a section of the target article, yes? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. - Eureka Lott 23:32, 15 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. Jay 💬 05:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows XI → Windows 11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see why this redirect needs to exist; similarly titled pages of older Windows redirects with Roman numerals were deleted as part of a deletion discussion from back in 2014. Colgatepony234 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The deletion was predicated on this being an "implausible typo", but I don't think I'd class it as a typo but rather an alternate, invalid name based on non-decimal numbering. Same could be used to delete "Windows 1011" as the base-2 form of "11". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:03, 12 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. Jay 💬 13:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft Internet Exploder → Satiric misspelling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

May need to be deleted, as this title is not mentioned in the target article. Colgatepony234 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even if it's not explicitly mentioned, it's obviously an example once you read the article. HotdogPi 16:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This probably could just be merged with the related discussion regarding the redirect called "Internet Exploder" give the similarity. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the discussions do remain separate, then I support whatever was the decision reached at the other discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did request a merging of this discussion with that one, if the earlier discussion gets relisted. Or can the merge just happen now? Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we absolutely should not have redirects from random satirical misspellings which aren't discussed at that article redirecting there. As I said at the other discussion, if something about this term specifically is added then of course it's fine to keep the target as Satiric misspelling. Second preference to retarget to Internet Explorer but as I also said someone searching this is much more likely looking for something about the term, but nothing about the term is on Wikipedia. A7V2 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that we don’t need to mention every possible satirical misspelling and this should be deleted this unless sources are provided to show that this term is actually in use in which case a sourced entry should be added to the target article.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting it next to the discussion for the redirects that target Internet Explorer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:00, 12 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Exploder → Internet Explorer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Internut Exploder → Internet Explorer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (bundled with the relist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
• Internet Exploiter → Internet Explorer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (bundled with the relist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
• Internet exploiter → Internet Explorer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (bundled with the relist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

This is a common misspelling of "Internet Explorer", but I've seen from many sources it's intentionally used for people to make fun of the browser. Keep this redirect or retarget to Satiric misspelling? Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not mentioned and nor is mention justified. Second preference would be to keep but I don't think someone searching this is looking for Internet Explorer, more likely looking for something about the term. Definitely oppose the suggested target of Satiric misspelling unless something about this term specifically is added there. A7V2 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whatever happens to Internet Exploder should probably be done with Microsoft Internet Exploder as well (which currently targets Satiric misspelling). Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Made a separate discussion for that article on today's RfD section. If this discussion gets relisted, merge both discussions. Colgatepony234 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don’t need to list every potential sarcastic misspelling.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also please bundle Internut Exploder with this, or with the other RfD. And also perhaps Internet Exploiter. We already have Internet exploiter (also pointing to the same target) in case that needs to be retargeted to something that exploits the internet. Jay 💬 04:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, add these too, along with Microsoft Internet Exploder if this discussion gets relisted. Colgatepony234 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As Microsoft Internet Exploder has its own RfD with a different set of votes and voters, it's too late to merge the RfDs. However, bundling a new redirect to any of the RfDs can be done. Jay 💬 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle in the other mentioned redirects that target Internet Explorer, as well as listing it next to the discussion for the redirect that targets Satiric misspelling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Exploder - Keep but redirect to Internet Explorer; agree it is a common typo

  the other three - Delete unless they are mentioned in the Satiric misspelling article; I myself dislike redirects where the topic is not mentioned in the target - it's a kind of teasing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These all seem like jokes/rare misspellings that have little to no traffic. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (for all except Internet Exploder which I !voted on above) delete for the reasons already given. I agree to an extent with Ceyockey that Internet Exploder is possibly a valid search term for the current target but I don't think the others are, so this is a "stronger" delete for the rest than the one above. A7V2 (talk) 05:09, 13 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 05:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• William IV of the Netherlands → Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. At one point it was believed he would be called William IV, but to have it redirect is a misnomer. We don't have a redirect of George VII to Charles III, even though that name was speculated for him, this shouldn't be different. He is never referred to as William IV of the Netherlands, and confusion could possibly arise with William IV, Prince of OrangeEstar8806 (talk) 16:33, 12 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 retarget to Adelaide Productions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Columbia TriStar Animation → Sony Pictures Animation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target doesn’t mention this redirect at all, so my proposal for this redirect is to retarget the redirect back to Adelaide Productions, which has a mention of this redirect. From Bassie f (his talk page) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Adelaide Productions per nom and bold the mention of it there per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. A7V2 (talk) 05:11, 13 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 retarget to Columbia TriStar Television. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Columbia Tri Star Television → Sony Pictures Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Columbia Tri-Star Television → Sony Pictures Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Columbia TriStar International Television → Sony Pictures Television#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Columbia-TriStar Television → Sony Pictures Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be retargeted back to Columbia TriStar Television as a {{R from modification}}. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request that Columbia Tri Star Television and Columbia Tri-Star Television, which also targets Sony Pictures Television currently, to be bundled and added into this discussion as well as Columbia TriStar International Television, which currently targets the History section of the Sony Pictures Television article. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Bundled. @Bassie f: I really hate to burst your bubble, but you should just go ahead and WP:BOLDly retarget these redirects yourself, as your proposal to retarget is uncontroversial, instead of bringing them next time to RfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will boldy change redirect targets next time. Thanks @CycloneYoris for bundling. From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Columbia TriStar Television per nom. A7V2 (talk) 05:13, 13 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 12:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• VidPrevtyn Beta® → Sanofi–GSK COVID-19 vaccine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RDELETE 8? I don't think the average person is including the Registered trademark symbol in their search and Vidprevtyn Beta is already an existing redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:09, 12 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).