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. With BDD's opinion struck out, and per WP:RELIST: "...A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days...", consensus is now clear and this discussion can be closed now without waiting another week, especially since the WP:NFCC issue reported in the nomimation has been resolved with <noinclude> tags around the file on the target page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article → TEV Wahine  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Violation of WP:NFCC#9: this redirect is used for the purpose of including a non-free image on Portal:Nautical. Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again, the easy fix for this is to put <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the non-free image in the article, so that the offending image does not display in the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not a WP:CNR out of article space so WP:RFD#D6 does not apply. The NFCC criterion still applies; and I don't see how a redirect circumvents it; it just doesn't work (and John's solution equally applies). (I guess it circumvents some page patrol?) It's not as if we have reams of redirects for the selected article for each day. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete? Since it's no longer the article of the day, this isn't used, and it's impossibly unlikely as a search term. Are redirects of this type usually established? If it's a common pattern, I suppose I can live with it, but if it's novel, delete with extreme prejudice. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @BDD: The redirect encodes the portal creator's choice of the "selected article" for 10 April; it will be used again on 10 April 2017. There are 365 or so similar redirects, one for each day of the year. Portal:Nautical is not the only portal that uses this scheme; Portal:Organized Labour does it this way too, and there may be others. Newer portals don't do it this way; instead of trying to displaying an entire article, they display 10-line introductions with a "Read more" link. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I think those portals would be well advised to transition to the newer system, since obviously this one is raising flags for some editors, but I won't press the issue. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation needed → Wikipedia:Citation needed  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Is this an appropriate WP:XNR? (Note: I did not create this redirect. I only added redirect categories.) SSTflyer 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems reasonable to keep it. It's actively in use in articles and even if fixed, it's likely to be used again - the format of 'citation needed' tags is such that it can confuse people into assuming it's a simple link. Not sure there would be a net benefit to removing it. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to "likely to be used again", I just got a notification that it had been added to a couple of articles in the past couple of days. Someone promptly updated it to be the templated version. I guess this shows the system works :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. It shows that some editors review and correct their texts. What you don't have is the co-respondent list of articles where it might be misused to mean the template, and not corrected, such as in Esperanto culture, Faster-than-light, Hasidic Judaism, Centenarian, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War to pick the first five on my WhatLinksHere. However, it seems more to be used in talk pages. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't dispute editors will try to use it, considering my own ineptness with typing the right brackets/braces, but since typing [[citation needed|date=April 2016]] makes itcitation needed and not in bracketed superscript, ^{[citation needed]}, it's a bit confusing either for the reader (if it's left like that) or for the hapless editor who wonders what has gone wrong; the error would probably be more easily detected were it a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, and a similar example Cite web. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that discussion concentrated on not having an article for an organisation called "Citation needed", and there were comments on it that the WP:XNR might not be appropriate; it was termed a "compromise". Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a citation being needed is not reader content, it is editor content, so WP:XNR to non-encyclopedic pipework. Further, needing citations is not something that is exclusively a concern of Wikipedia, it is something that comes up in academics, so is not properly helpful to those who are trying to read something about citations and lacking thereof and the effects of that. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XKCD and WP:CNR. As above. Wikipedia's citation tag is not a notable topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Andrew Gray points out, this is a common error by new users who do not know our arcane wiki-space conventions. There is little possibility of confusion since there is not and will not likely ever be an encyclopedia article appropriate to this title. Readers and new editors are trying to get to the Wikipedia template and we should not frustrate them with arbitrary rules. A redirect at least points them in the right direction. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is doubt that it is a common error. The thing is do we allow the error to rest or do we encourage it to be fixed? I feel that it would be better to have it red, and that would allow new editors more quickly to learn their mistakes. But (and I am not bragging here, just kinda declaring an interest) I am one of the rare class of editors who created families of templates, sometimes, before the days of Lua, so I am very familiar with the horrors of template syntax. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes a crutch is a bad thing - but you need it early on. A redlink does show the new user that he/she made a mistake but it offers no guidance on how to fix it. A 'wrong' but working format will still look slightly different to the editor and provides them the link to figure out what they did wrong. And even if the original user doesn't self-correct, it's easy for other editors monitoring the page to see the problem and fix it. The error will not "rest" - it will get cleaned up either way. The question is which is more supportive of our users as they do so. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's even worse, attaching a wikilink to the redirect to indicate citation needed is a very bad idea. It will appear as if it were encyclopedic material. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical comment. If an editor uses the redirect in article space instead of the template, the article will not be put in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2016 (or whatever month). This might be deliberate on talk pages but seldom, I think, on article pages. There are plenty of redirects in template namespace (I use {{cn}}). But simply mentioning the redirect does not invoke the categorisation behaviour; if it did, this discussion page would be in the category. (It's the Use-mention distinction.) Also, I think, parameters to a redirect are not passed along to the target, but I might be wrong there. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XNR. Really all that needs to be said here. ansh666 23:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Gray/IAR. Let's not making the learning curve for newbies even steeper than it already is, folks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's not making the learning curve for newbies even steeper than it already is, folks. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... ? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEWBIES and WP:SURPRISE and WP:RFD#D2; wot Anoamcaris said, but I am the policy bloke here so I link to what we all already know (but newbies may not). Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a likely mistake. It's easy to catch and help the newbie rather than have them make a red link and scratch their head, and to some extent having the XNR is self correcting, as the target explains how to do it properly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  

  @Rich Farmbrough: The newbies aren't going to be clicking on the link, though, they'll just see that it's blue and move on. I'd rather not perpetuate the misuse by making it look okay. ansh666 01:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone is clicking the links. The page gets around 100 visits per day. If you analyse the history dump of en:Wikipedia you could establish whether people correct this mistake on their own. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Keep as a likely newbie error. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should do this for all cleanup templates, so that newbie editors can all mislink to cleanup templates with standard pagelinks? -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessary. Citation needed is by far the most common, and it appears with [] around it, which is probably a reason for the error. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 24 April 2016 (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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Year → 2016  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• This Year → 2016  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Present Year → 2016  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#This millennium and Current millennium (closed as delete by me); Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#This century and Current century (closed as delete by me); and This decade (PRODded by me, deleted by Rjd0060, who also speedily deleted Current decade, as it redirected there). IMO, this all adds up to a situation where G6 is appropriate, though I'll leave that decision to someone else. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I thought about putting it up for speedy deletion or asking one of the deleting admins involved (including you) in the situations above to delete it given the circumstances. There was one keep at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year, so it isn't quite uncontroversial. Furthermore, it's technically ineligible for a speedy deletion or PROD as it has survived a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#This Year. If someone wants to IAR speedy it, and link to the consensus that has been built recently in various discussions, I think that would be fine.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an FYI, redirects can't be PRODded (sp?), so it'd be ineligible for PROD no matter what history it had. What's ironic about this particular redirect is that it would have been deleted along with This year if it wasn't for an IP retargeting it to John Oliver (comedian) just a couple weeks before it was nominated, and the vandalism(?) was repaired after the other discussion closed, so it narrowly escaped deletion. Personally, I don't see how this redirect is different from the other ones, so it should follow the same result. I don't care if it's done speedily or not (it's not a pressing issue), but since we're here, we might as well wait out the five more days or so unless an admin is up for it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects or targets of redirects can be prodded, exactly as has happened on April 15 with Body of Work (album) while Body of Work is listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_15#Body_of_Work. Have rug will pull from under. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the relevant rule from WP:PROD: PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages; it cannot be used with redirects, userspace pages, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. Targets of redirects are usually articles, which obviously can be prodded, but that's a completely different matter. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but once a redirect is listed here at RfD it is not technically a redirect but some other kind of page (and as far as most tools know, it is an article). I didn't say it made any sense to prod it, but it can be via Twinkle etc... I must admit I did only have in my mind redirects that were listed at RfD or otherwise no longer functioning redirects, and didn't say that. Si Trew (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This Year and Present Year were invalidly speedy-deleted in late 2012 as the result of a bad bot-action. They have been restored and converted to the dynamic code recommended in the 2012 deletion discussion. They should probably be merged to this discussion and share the same fate as Current Year.
  With that said, keep all because they are not harmful, redirects really are that cheap and they get enough hits to show that they're at least somewhat useful. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those double redirects were targeted there for about four years, hence they were deleted per the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year under WP:CSD#G8.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to make my comment from above official. I don't see any reason any of these redirects should have a different result than the previous discussion. I've added the two redirects that Rossami mentioned. I disagree that the deletion of those were invalid, I specifically made a note about them in the previous discussion and no one objected, but hey, process is important. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above and previous concensus, as WP:RFD#D1 hinder search, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. *(edit conflict) Delete as all above and previous concensus, as WP:RFD#D1 hinder search, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I note that that year, that day, that week, that month are all red; last year, last week, last month, next year, next week, next month and next sexagisennial are all red too. WP:RELATIVETIME. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2016 (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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's Marry → Let's Get Married (Russia)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:SURPRISE. Could easily refer to other things. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search as WP:XY; Channel One Russia says (with the redlink) that Davaj pozhenimsja ("Let's marry", Давай поженимся) is also a programme even though that is different Russian (not Добро пожаловать, as at the current target). There's also Pelli Chesukundam (but not Pellichesukundam) thus translated, and other things. Could DAB it I suppose, I don't know what a common-sense application of WP:PTM would suggest for (sensible) translations of titles. RU:WP has a DAB at but I can't see how it's related. I guess the target should be interwiki linked to the TV programme at but since it's currently a one-sentence article {{under construction}} with no information on the programme that's by no means certain.

Please note' this was recently created (two days ago) by a new editor; the target is their only contribution. WP:Please don't bite the newbies. Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the newbie has requested assistance, at my talk page, for building the target location's article -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am person who created this new entry. Please don't delete. In Russian there are two ways of saying this title, lets marry or lets get married, depending on the translation. Both are correct. thank you! Moscowamerican (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as there appears to be at least two television programs known as Lets Marry as well as multiple easily confused media over at the page Let's Get Married. Personally, when I first looked at this entry, I thought of the song by The Proclaimers. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab per Coffee. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 25 April 2016 (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 all. The present target is misleading and no convincing alternative has been presented. Just Chilling (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford  (links · history · of Christ stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford  (links · history · temple of Christ stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The house of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford  (links · house of Christ&action=history history · house of Christ stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

My instinct tells me this should be retargeted to a Christianity related topic, not to a college at Oxford. Also nominated:

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Christian Church (disambiguation), which will cover it -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is presumably based on alternative translations of Christ Church's name in Latin, Aedes Christi, but no-one would ever actually use these names to refer to Christ Church - the closest such usage is "The House", which is already covered on the dab page for that. Retarget per the IP's suggestion, unless anyone thinks of a better target. Bencherlite^Talk 07:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget as above. I wondered whether Christ's Cleansing of the Temple would be a good target for those containing "temple", but probably not. The House of God is a satirical novel, so that's no good either. Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added the correct section link to the RfD notes for the bottom three. Someone should probably notify the creator, though, User:Neelix. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not really required to notify Neelix. I usually do it once per batch. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, true, but it would have saved me a little effort to find out they were Neelix redirects had the nominator said so, and if they had their history pages linked (and the "what links here", and stats would be a bonus). Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as Neelix nonsense. I added links for ya SimonTrew. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lots of churches with the Temple of Christ name, [1], not necessarily affiliated with each other, so this would not suit WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oxford one didn't even come up. If the Latin name is the primary name then retarget that one. This is like redirecting Sacred Heart Cathedral to the Paris building. The lower-case situations are even more general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sacre coeur and sacre-coeur do indeed redirect to Sacré-Cœur, Paris, as does Sacre Coeur. (Not Sacre cœeur, , Sacre-Coeur or Sacre-Cœur though. It might not be a bad ide to mention the Paris cathedral the DAB at Sacred Heart Cathedral (it currently isn't), although it is, indirectly, at Sacred Heart Church. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retarget to Christian Church (disambiguation) since Church of Christ (disambiguation) also exists. (I was hoping that the nomimated redirects could be {{R from erroneous name}} redirects for this target, but now due to the other disambiguation page referenced here, they would still be ambiguous.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian Church (disambiguation) contains a listing for Church of Christ (disambiguation) so that is covered by the retarget -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We don't really have any good target for these titles, as the discussion thus far has shown. Deryck C. 22:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first two to Temple#Christian temples. Hopefully this will alleviate the ambiguity by redirecting to an overview of "temples" in the Christian context. Delete the second two, I think those are a little too far off the mark. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with Steel1943's opposition. My second choice would be deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Retarget per Tavix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
   

• Delete I just don't think we really have sufficient coverage of any topics that would actually be referred to by this name. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusuf → Abdul Kadir Yusuf  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Tan Sri Abu Bakar → Abu Bakar bin Abdul Jamal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan → Ananda Krishnan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Tan Sri Azman Hashim → Azman Hashim  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato' Lokman Yusof → Lokman Yusof  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato' Seri Abu Bakar → Abu Bakar bin Abdul Jamal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato' Seri Musa Bin Dato' Haji Hassan → Musa Hassan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato' Sri Mohd Anwar Bin Hj Mohd Nor → Mohammad Anwar Mohammad Nor  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato K.R. Somasundram → K. R. Somasundram  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato Lokman Yusof → Lokman Yusof  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dato Samsudin Osman → Samsudin Osman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Datuk TIONG Hiew King → Tiong Hiew King  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Datuk Tiong Hiew King → Tiong Hiew King  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dr Noordin Sopiee → Mohammad Noordin Sopiee  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Dr Runme Shaw → Runme Shaw  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Haji Mohamad Noah Omar → Mohamad Noah Omar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Halim Saad → Halim Saad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah → Jeffrey Cheah  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim → Khalid Ibrahim  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat → Khoo Teck Puat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Kong Hon Kong → Kong Hon Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay → Lim Kok Thay  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Megat Junid → Megat Junid Megat Ayub  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Mohammad Noah → Mohamad Noah Omar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Mohd Saleh bin Sulong → Saleh Sulong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard → Mubin Sheppard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Runme Shaw → Runme Shaw  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri SM Nasimuddin SM Amin → SM Nasimuddin SM Amin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Syed Jaabar Albar → Syed Jaafar Albar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Syed Jaafar Albar → Syed Jaafar Albar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary → Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Syed Nasir → Syed Nasir Ismail  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Syed Sheh Al-Haj bin Syed Hassan Barakbah → Syed Sheh Hassan Barakbah  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah → Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh bin Hamzah → Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun → Vincent Tan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Tan Sri William Cheng → William Cheng  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merged several similar discussions together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE not all of these are redirects (some are articles), not all of these have RFD tags. Some of these contain edit histories (and should be investigated for merges and cut and past moves) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects exist not because pages link to them, but because people spell it that way. If you can't find the article because the redirect was deleted, it is not helping people. If people don't know these are honorifics and only saw the name as presented with honorifics in documents they are reading, then we are not helping people by hiding the articles by deleting the redirects from honorific forms. This is being consistent with the purpose for redirects. Redirects are not articles. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth ^(Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{U|Earth, they have already been redirected, just as they should be, because we do standardize these according to the MOS. The question here is rather whether should should keep the redirects from the original incorrect titles.
    • Redirects with history of pages that were merged cannot simply be deleted per WP:CWW other actions must occur -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/cheap. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These would be violations of the naming conventions if they were article titles, but they're not article titles. The names with the title added are valid search terms, and therefore good redirects. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. As noted in the discussions above, redirects are held to a different standard than article titles. No valid reason has been given to delete these redirects. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Redirects are cheap. Readers of the English language Wikipedia are unlikely to recognize these as titles when seeing them in an outside source and then attempting to look them up in Wikipedia.HarryHenryGebel (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2016 (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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim → Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Abdul Malik Mydin → Abdul Malik Mydin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Abdul Samad Hj. Alias → Abdul Samad Alias  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Abdullah Ahmed Badwi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Awang Jabar Secondary Schoo → Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Datuk Awang Jabar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Awang Jabar Secondary School → Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Datuk Awang Jabar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Bernard Chandran → Bernard Chandran  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Dr S Vijayaratnam → Vijayaratnam Seevaratnam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk G. Palanivel → Palanivel Govindasamy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Huseein bin Onn → Hussein Onn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk K. Rajagobal → K. Rajagopal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk K. Rajagopal → K. Rajagopal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Kamarudin Meranun → Kamarudin Meranun  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Kamarudin bin Meranun → Kamarudin Meranun  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Lamri Ali → Lamri Ali  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Lat → Lat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk M. Kayveas → M. Kayveas  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Mustapa Mohamed → Mustapa Mohamed  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Nicol Ann David → Nicol David  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Dr George Chan Hong Nam → George Chan Hong Nam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Shake → Shake (singer)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Sheikh Abdullah Ahmad → Shake (singer)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Simon C. Yew → Simon C. Yew  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Simon C Yew → Simon C. Yew  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Simon Chong Yew → Simon C. Yew  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Tun Hussien Onn → Hussein Onn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Vinod Balachandra Sekhar → Vinod Sekhar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Zakaria Md Deros → Zakaria Deros  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk lat → Lat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Alexander Iskandar (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merged several discussions together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. - 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth ^(Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all I actually searched for "Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim" (or some such), a name I saw in a newspaper, not knowing what it means. So it is both cheap and useful. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a redirect and an article title. Or will the redirects Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr Martin Luther King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Dr. King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., etc. all be next up? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Datuk seems to be used pretty much in the same way as Sir before English names and to an uninitiated reader might look like part of the name.[2] Has anyone proposed to delete the redirect Sir Elton John? — kashmiri ^TALK 09:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for same reasons as in the discussion above. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2016 (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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Anthony Francis Fernandes → Tony Fernandes  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan → Joseph Pairin Kitingan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai → Liow Tiong Lai  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Mahathir bin Mohamed → Mahathir Mohamad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]l
• Datuk Seri Mahathir bin Mohammad → Mahathir Mohamad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Mohamad Norza Zakaria → Mohamad Norza Zakaria  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali → Azmin Ali  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam → Mohd Ali Rustam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Najib Razak → Najib Razak  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak → Najib Razak  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Norza Zakaria → Mohamad Norza Zakaria  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Panglima O.K.K Gunsanad Kina → Gunsanad Kina  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar → Syed Hamid Albar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin → Zainuddin Maidin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merged several similar discussions together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all —as per 70.51.45.100 above. I created one of them after coming across a reference to "Datuk Seri Najib Razak" somewhere; as I did not know his name from his title, I searched in Wikipedia (a search which should go right to his article). —Morning star (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth ^(Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all I actually searched for "Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim" (or some such), a name I saw in a newspaper, not knowing what it means. So it is both cheap and useful. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a redirect and an article title. Or will the redirects Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr Martin Luther King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Dr. King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., etc. all be next up? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for same reasons as in the discussion above. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2016 (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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Datin Paduka Rosmah Mansor → Rosmah Mansor  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Datin Seri Endon Mahmood → Endon Mahmood  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Datin Seri Paduka Rosmah Mansor → Rosmah Mansor  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Arthur Tan → Tan Chin Nam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Dr Low Bin Tick → Low Bin Tick  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Farah Khan → Farah Khan (Malaysian businesswoman)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Jaafar Muhammad → Jaafar Mohamed  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Megat Yunus → Megat Yunus  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Muhammad bin Sharif Othman → Muhammad Sharif Othman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Musa bin Wahab → Musa Wahab  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Norza Zakaria → Mohamad Norza Zakaria  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Onn Ja'afar → Onn Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Onn Jaafar → Onn Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Paduka Ahmad Basri Akil → Ahmad Basri Akil  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Diraja Tajol Rosli bin Mohd Ghazali → Tajol Rosli Mohd Ghazali  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Bin Tun Hussein → Hishammuddin Hussein  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato' Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir → Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin v Zambry Abdul Kadir  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Megat Jaafar → Megat Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak → Najib Razak  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato' Soh Chin Aun → Soh Chin Aun  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Abdul Malik Mydin → Abdul Malik Mydin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Arthur Tan → Tan Chin Nam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Maharajalela Lela → Lela Pandak Lam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Onn Bin Ja'afar → Onn Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Onn Ja'afar → Onn Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Onn Jaafar → Onn Jaafar  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Paduka Haji Marsal Bin Maun → Marsal Maun  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Param Cumaraswamy → Param Cumaraswamy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Shake → Shake (singer)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Sri. Vijay Eswaran → Vijay Eswaran  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak → Najib Razak  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Sri Tahir → Tahir (Indonesian businessman)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Tan Chin Nam → Tan Chin Nam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Vijay Eswaran → Vijay Eswaran  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato Wee Han Wen → Wee Han Wen  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi → Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato’ Seri Ir Hj. Mohammad Nizar Bin Jamaluddin v. Dato’ Dr. Zambry Bin Abd. Kadir → Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin v Zambry Abdul Kadir  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dato’ Siti Nurhaliza → Siti Nurhaliza  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dato' Keramat → Kampung Datuk Keramat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Datok Keramat → Kampung Datuk Keramat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Many identical discussions combined. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirects are cheap, but I've had a hard time verifying this title, specifically at Vijay Eswaran, which has a history of weak sources and promotional edits. Ideally, these should all be reliably verified in the articles before having redirects, but that seems like a lot of work for little benefit. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth ^(Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all I actually searched for "Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim" (or some such), a name I saw in a newspaper, not knowing what it means. So it is both cheap and useful. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is what redirects are for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep all There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a redirect and an article title. Or will the redirects Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr Martin Luther King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Dr. King, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., etc. all be next up? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for same reasons as in the discussion above. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2016 (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 Thomas Hardy's Wessex. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mellstock → Stinsford  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mellstock is a fictional town used in a couple of books. Stinsford is the real inspiration. Such a redirect doesn't make sense. It's like redirecting Cicely, Alaska to Talkeetna, Alaska or Metropolis (city) to New York City. Deletion probably is the best option, since users would see search results pointing to the fictional works involved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Thomas Hardy's Wessex, which puts it all in context. Could point to sections "Thomas Hardy's Wessex names" or "Table of Wessex place-names, their actual places, and their appearance in Hardy's novels"; maybe we could anchor it to Mellstock's entry in the latter. Right now, only Casterbridge and Cresscombe redirect here, but IMO, they're good precedent. (The former is not a Neelix redirect.) -- BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 25 April 2016 (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) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub → Template:BistrițaNăsăud-geo-stub  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misnamed stub tag redirect (it's not a type of {{Năsăud-geo-stub}}), now orphaned עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the base article for this region is Bistrița-Năsăud County -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible error for those unfamiliar with stub naming conventions, and entirely unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 27 April 2016 (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 Karatepe-Aslantaş National Park, which seems like the obvious consensus despite keep votes nominally favoring just plain Karatepe. Please let me know if I've misunderstood (ping ping ping). --BDD (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Karatepe-Arslantaş National Park → Karatepe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect has been in place since 2007, but is a not-very-plausible typo of Karatepe-Aslantaş National Park (the extra "r" in Aslantaş). ansh666 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The title "Karatepe-Arslantaş" is definitely wrong if you check with a Google search. Not understandable why we must keep a mistyped title even it's so old. CeeGee 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it's an alternative (German?) spelling rather than a typo. The German Wikipedia has a page de:Karatepe-Arslantaş so it will probably help smooth interwiki links. A quick Google search for "Karatepe-Arslantaş" turns up number of reliable English-language sources using that spelling too, e.g. this book review in AJA (in the body of the text, but not the title). Joe Roe (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that would fall under WP:RFOREIGN, since neither English Wikipedia nor this national park in Turkey have any particular affinity for German. ansh666 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. It's an alternative spelling that is more common in German than English, not a translation. As I said it does appear in English language sources. Here are a few more: [3] [4] [5]. It doesn't seem implausible that someone coming across the site/national park from those sources would look for it here with that spelling. Joe Roe (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even if its not a very common typo or flubbed alternative spelling based on translations, I feel inclined to keep this if we it is indeed something that happens out there 'in the wild' and the redirect isn't doing any harm, which it isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not harmful and it may be helpful, especially if as Joe Roe says, this is an alternate transliteration. More, as old as it is, there may be links in history or externally (things that won't show in "what links here". No reason to make the problem of linkrot worse if there is no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am from Windows → Virus hoax  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term, if anything retarget to technical support scam. Could refer to actual Microsoft representatives etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created the redirect in 2012 because it is the most likely search term that readers will use to find information on the subject, especially when they don't know what subject they are actually looking for. The redirect is based on what Indian scammers say when you answer the phone. "Hello I am calling from Windows to tell you you have a virus on your computer". I got six more of these calls last week, so it is still ongoing. The point is that a reader will not understand what the phone calls are about, but will search for that introductory sentence and that will lead them to Virus hoax, which is the answer to the question, "what is this about?" changing the redirect to point to Technical support scam, would be fine as well. Due to the wording used by the scammers this is an appropriate redirect for this article or to Technical support scam. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vague. No mention at the potential targets. As Ahunt points out, it could equally point to at least two targets. Lastly, it could actually refer to Microsoft representatives to a certain extent per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2016 (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 Speedy Delete G6 by User:The_ed17 Lenticel ^(talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Grizzles → Grizzlies  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be an WP:XY case: "Grizzles" could either be a typo for Grizzlies or a plural for Grizzle. Since Grizzle is a surname page, both seem fairly unlikely to me. A retarget to wikt:grizzles is always an option, but I think I'm leaning towards delete: WP:NOTDIC. (Neelix) -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:49, 18 April 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Monarch flycatchers, flycatchers, fantails, drongos and the Magpie-lark → Drongo  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, seems to be an implausible list to search for, especially since everything in the plural except for 'the Magpie-lark.' -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, expanding the drongo family to include monarch flycatchers et al. doesn't seem to be widely accepted. The IOC recognizes separate families. Also, the redirect is poorly formed (capital "Magpie-lark", and singular) and would need to be reformatted if a broader circumscription of Dicruridae is accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2016 (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 Speedy Delete G6 by User:The_ed17 Lenticel ^(talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuhl → Stool  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to fail WP:RFOREIGN because stools have no affinity for the German language. (Neelix) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, general topic with no particular affinity for German -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FB crit → Criticism of Facebook  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, hopelessly vague. FB is a disambiguation, and when I see "crit," I normally think of criteria. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I kept thinking about medical tests with that term. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think of a critical strike personally.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as appears to be an implausible search term. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 08:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Open-and-shut case. This can probably be closed shortly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2016 (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.