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 G7 delete per author. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chronology of Sony PlayStation games released in Japan → List of PlayStation games (A–L)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Several years ago, this redirect was moved to List of PlayStation games in chronological order (which is worth keeping, being an {{R with history}}, despite only getting 52 pageviews since July 2015 compared with 49 for this) to "revert [a] blocked user." This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a history, and the chronology isn't exclusively Japanese releases-not sure how useful this is now. Regards, SONIC678 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This title was created by pagemove-vandalism, which I reverted 6+ years ago, and in hindsight I probably should have reverted while suppressing redirect instead of leaving this behind (chalk this up to admin inexperience). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 101#This might be a problem for context. I'm the only editor of the redirect so this !vote here is probably sufficient for a G7 Speedy Delete right? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:26, 29 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• British-Irish Agreement → Good Friday Agreement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There were plenty of other treaties between the British and the Irish. (Anglo-Irish Treaty, Anglo-Irish Agreement.) TheAwesomeHwyh 19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless turned into a distinct article of its own, it's currently detailed at Good Friday Agreement#Implementation. The British-Irish Agreement is effectively a supplement to the Good Friday Agreement, it's detailed here. There's more details about the two agreements here, saying that the agreement between the British and Irish governments is hereinafter referred to as “the British-Irish Agreement”, and the Agreement reached in multi-party negotiations on 10 April 1998 (which is the GFA) is hereinafter referred to as the “Multi-Party Agreement”. FDW777 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - Given that multiple agreements can be called this, creating a disambiguation page seems to be the best option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that multiple agreements can be called this (there's already a hatnote at GFA for Anglo-Irish Agreement, I wouldn't object if someone thought the Anglo-Irish Treaty really needed adding). The nomination is apparently based on the flawed assumption that the British-Irish Agreement refers to the GFA, when it doesn't. It refers to a separate agreement on the same day that legislated for the implementation of the GFA, and this agreement's proper name is indeed the British-Irish Agreement. 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Swuck → Anatidae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was created with the justification Cross between swan and duck. I can't find any evidence that this is a term that has been used in reliable sources; internet and Scholar searches returned only unrelated results. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:MADEUP/WP:NEOLOGISM. There isn't even any consistency between the unreliable sources; just a selection of one-off jokes. The practicality of a cross is as near zero as makes no difference: swans and ducks are in different biological families. Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 30 April 2020 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kairiki Bear → Bear  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was created with the justification "Kairiki" means cute in Japanese. Bears are cute, right?. Random adjective-subject pair redirects are not useful, much less a pair where the adjective is a transliteration from another language. Delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Everyone's a joker. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, adding that there's a music artist with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. There's a music producer of the same name so there's also a plausible WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 30 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Do coronavirus 2019 really used to mean SARS-CoV-2, aka novel coronavirus? Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don’t think anyone is going to be searching for this redirect. It contains two errors, one “coronavirus 2019” which I’ve never heard anyone use until now. sam1370 (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, "Coronavirus disease 2019" (COVID-19) is sometimes (erroneously) referred to as "Coronavirus 2019". Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless the virus is specifically designated "COVID-19" in the redirect, which this one it is not, the redundancy department sees the redundancy in this redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per redundancy. we already got 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic, Covid19 pandemic, and 2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic to redirect there. Someone typing in "2019-2020 coronavirus" in search will see the pandemic pages right away AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Controversies related to the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Controversies related to 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The target article does not really discuss such thing. Delete. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak was moved on 23 February 2020‎ to Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, which was redirected to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic finally. Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak include many topics (e.g., misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), not just criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. It's appropriate to maintain it as a redirect page to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak was changed to a redirect page to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic per the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak to keep the edit history. Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak include topics in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (e.g, Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, etc.). It's incorrect to say that "the target article does not really discuss such thing". These redirect pages should all be kept. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the edit history is really useful, then merge the history to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have bundled discussions with identical rationales. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that there are many topics that are controversial relating to the pandemic (its origin, handling of the crisis, comments by prominent politicians, role of major organisations, deliberate or purported disinformation, state censorship, etc.), it is possible to turn it into a full article, it only needs someone who has the inclination to do it properly. Until then, redirecting them may be the best option for these pages. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this recently closed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Christian75 (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2020 (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 withdrawn. See below. (non-admin closure) Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• China pneumonia outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible redirect with a very few amount of page views. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. China pneumonia outbreak was created on 11 January 2020‎ as a redirect page to 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak, which was finally moved to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. If 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak is a valid redirect page to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, China pneumonia outbreak should also be a valid redirect page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – Both of the redirects are implausible, as coronavirus disease 2019 and a typical pneumonia are remotely different to each other. However, the 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak has high page views, therefore I want to keep that redirect. On the other hand, the China pneumonia outbreak has even lower page views. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China pneumonia outbreak and 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak are not implausible redirects. Coronavirus disease 2019 is atypical pneumonia, which is subclass of pneumonia. So it is acceptable to say that coronavirus disease 2019 is a type of pneumonia. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Differentiability → Differentiable function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Just the noun for differentiable, which is a disambiguation page. Suggesting retargeting there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. Differentiability is the quality of being differentiable, that is, to have a derivative. This applies to functions, but not to the other items of the dab page, where "differentiable" means differentiability of the functions occuring in the definition of the structure, not differentiability of the structure itself, to which derivative cannot apply. D.Lazard (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "differentiability" is a concept that is not ambiguous at all, and is related to the non ambiguous concept of differentiable function. It is absurd to redirect a non ambiguous term to a dab page. D.Lazard (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this redirect is linked to from 22 pages in the main space. The proposed change would imply to edit all these pages. Another absurdity. D.Lazard (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Differentiability" is the property of being differentiable, which of the four choices is really only possessed by functions. Not only that, but the current dab page at Differentiable is inappropriate per WP:PTM. I would suggest changing it to a redirect to Differentiable function for the same reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Differentiable must be a redirect to Differentiable function. In fact, saying that something is differentiable implies that it is a function (or it is viewed as a function). A differentiable manifold is not a manifold that is differentiable; a differentiable stack is not a stack that is differentiable; a neural computer may be said to be differentiable, if it behaves like a differentiable function, but a neural computer that is differentiable in this sense is not necessarily a "differentiable neural computer" (here "differentiable" is a part of a phrase that cannot be split). So WP:PTM applies undoubtly, and this dab page is inappropriate. D.Lazard (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to DAB page. "Differentiable" and "differentiability" are thoroughly ambiguous words, which mean different things to (among other people) mathematicians and zoologists. Examples from zoology: "two morphologically differentiable taxa", "the number of chromas differentiable by bees", and "differentiable by chromosome number and colour". No discipline has a monopoly on these words. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because that's what the mathematics editors are saying. Maths may not have a monopoly on words, but it appears to have a monopoly on this particular word as an encyclopedic topic, and it certainly has a full monopoly on the dab page. As far as I can see, in the three zoology-related links above, the word is used in its everyday sense, where "differentiate" simply means "tell apart". – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find D.Lazard's reasoning persuasive: of the four entries at the dab page, differentiable function is the only one that is "an X that is differentiable" (the other ones are things that are named for being related to differentiable functions, rather than for being differentiable themselves) and therefore differentiability as a concept really only makes sense for differentiable functions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is per Uanfala and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2020 (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. Not much discussion, but the nom clearly lays out an argument that the current redirect title is a neologism, which is a solid basis for deletion in the absence of a rebuttal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Khasan Pradesh → Karnali Pradesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It was created by a known POV pusher during a move. Serves no useful purpose, and may be offensive to some groups. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why is this redirect POV/culturally insensitive? (Not everyone knows Nepali, and Wiktionary doesn't have this word.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! "Khasan" was, according to some, a small region in the medieval Khas Malla Kingdom, an empire encompassing western Nepal and parts of India and Tibet. Khas are the people associated with the region. Post Maoist insurgency, there was a rise in ethnic nationalism in the country with traditionally oppressed groups demanding autonomous ethnic provinces for each of them. "Khasan" was proposed as one such state for the Khas people who were considered the oppressors, both as a gesture of compromise, and as a way of saying "the country you have dominated does not belong to you, except for maybe that small region that's associated with your tribe". Add "Pradesh" to "Khasan" and it's a neologism that the editor just invented. The "Khasan" province that was proposed and rejected has nothing to do with the "Karnali Pradesh" that exists, except for the fact that the historical "Khasan" region in the Khas Malla Empire lies in the present day Karnali Pradesh. "Khasan" as a modern idea is fringe; "Khasan Pradesh" is a complete hoax; same with equating Karnali Pradesh to "Khasan Pradesh". "Khasan" though might have been a valid redirect to Khas Malla Kingdom if it weren't a DAB already. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:28, 29 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamang or bhotey people → Tamang people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created by a POV-pusher. Lumps Tamang people and Bhotiya people together, which, in my experience, is offensive to those groups. Serves no useful purpose. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (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 update target and rename, both times to "mass media". E.g. retarget the first to Category:Mass media in Naha and move it to the corresponding Category:Mass media in Naha, Okinawa. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Media in Naha, Okinawa → Category:Media in Naha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Niigata, Niigata → Category:Media in Niigata (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Shizuoka, Shizuoka → Category:Media in Shizuoka (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi → Category:Media in Yamaguchi (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in the British Overseas Territories → Category:Mass media in British Overseas Territories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in the Inland Empire Metropolitan Area → Category:Media in the Inland Empire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Swindon → Category:Media in Wiltshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Swaziland → Category:Mass media in Eswatini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media of South America → Category:Mass media in South America  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in St. Joseph County, Indiana → Category:Media in South Bend, Indiana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Akita, Akita → Category:Media in Akita (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Iaşi → Category:Media in Iași  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Grand Falls–Windsor → Category:Media in Grand Falls-Windsor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]&nbsp
• Category:Media in Gangwon Province (South Korea) → Category:Media in Gangwon Province, South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Gambia → Category:Mass media in the Gambia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Fukuoka (city) → Category:Media in Fukuoka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Fukui, Fukui → Category:Media in Fukui (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ferrol, Galicia → Category:Media in Ferrol, Spain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Dohuk → Category:Media in Duhok  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Cumberland, MD-WV → Category:Media in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Constanţa → Category:Media in Constanța  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Cleveland, Tennessee → Category:Media in Bradley County, Tennessee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Chişinău → Category:Media in Chișinău  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Chiba, Chiba → Category:Media in Chiba (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Bălţi → Category:Media in Bălți  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Brazilia → Category:Mass media in Brazil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Bolton Borough → Category:Media in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Baranovichi → Category:Media in Baranavichy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Aomori, Aomori → Category:Media in Aomori (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Allen County, Indiana → Category:Media in Fort Wayne, Indiana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ponta Delgada (Azores) → Category:Media in Ponta Delgada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Palestine → Category:Media in Palestine (region)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ottawa-Gatineau → Category:Media in Ottawa–Gatineau  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ottawa → Category:Media in Ottawa–Gatineau  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Oldham Borough → Category:Media in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Nancy → Category:Media in Nancy, France  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Minorca → Category:Media in Menorca  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Midland-Odessa → Category:Media in Midland–Odessa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Macedonia → Category:Mass media in North Macedonia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Kōriyama, Fukushima → Category:Media in Kōriyama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Kumamoto, Kumamoto → Category:Media in Kumamoto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in West Greece → Category:Media in Western Greece  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in West Midlands region, England → Category:Media in the West Midlands (region)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Volos → Category:Media in Thessaly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Val-d'Or → Category:Media in Abitibi-Témiscamingue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Toyama, Toyama → Category:Media in Toyama (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Tippecanoe County, Indiana → Category:Media in Lafayette, Indiana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Timisoara → Category:Media in Timișoara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Stockport Borough → Category:Media in the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in St. Gallen → Category:Media in St. Gallen (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Rouyn-Noranda → Category:Media in Abitibi-Témiscamingue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ōtsu, Shiga → Category:Media in Ōtsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Category:Media in Ōita, Ōita → Category:Media in Ōita (city)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete these and recreate corresponding redirects following current nomenclature per recent CfD. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - with respect to Grand Falls–Windsor, there is already an active Category:Mass media in Grand Falls-Windsor, which should be redirected/resolved accordingly. Dl2000 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dl2000: Every red link has a corresponding correctly-named category, the broken redirects result from the category moves. Blue links are either already correctly named or currently nominated for speedy renaming. This RfD is for the leftover redirects of the CfD. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably easier to update the existing redirects, and move them to "mass media" without leaving a redirect. This would also have the benefit of keeping the page history. I'll do that with the ones that I come across when cleaning up after WP:CFDW. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you do it for the rest, too? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fayenatic london, since you have an idea of what's going on with the categorization, would you be willing to close this one? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ina Ray Hutton Showw → The Ina Ray Hutton Show  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm not sure if someone would search "show" with two W's here, which might be why it doesn't seem to get a lot of pageviews compared to its target... Regards, SONIC678 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unambiguously created in errorr. Narky Blert (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 30 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess Holiday (only released on the Dreamcast in Japan) → Princess Holiday  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This game...wasn't released solely on the Dreamcast or even originally on there, while it does only list the Japanese release dates. This redirect didn't even get very many pageviews since July 2015, and started out for less than three months as some weird kind of duplicate article before being redirected in 2006. Not sure how useful it is now to keep this sitting around. Regards, SONIC678 04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weird and implausible qualifier. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not even an attempt to make a proper disambiguation — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (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 Jackson (name). Rough consensus to retarget to Jackson (name). The suggested target is actually a redirect that points to it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• S jackson → Stonewall Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Jackson (surname). I'm not convinced Stonewall, while he is prominent in American culture, is the primary topic for S. Jackson, especially since Stonewall isn't even his real name. Too many S. Jacksons (Samuel L. Jackson for one) to have this as a primary topic. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - I agree that this should go to 'Jackson (surname)'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Narky Blert (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jackson (surname) per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is anyone actually known as "S jackson"? Either way, there are too many errors—S. Jackson, for example, may be useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix, no obvious nickname usage like Sam Jackson AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Tavix due to at least two spelling issues. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, nothing is to be gained by deleting this. — J947 ^[cont] 05:43, 30 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Necrotizing pneumonia → Pneumonia#Other types  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Anchor is broken.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better wait for someone to write an article or a better target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article or section creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiGap Challenge/Results → meta:WikiGap Challenge/Results  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was nominated for speedy deletion by @Ost316 with the following edit summary:

Only see two incoming links, though justification was to prevent having to fix incoming links, unless it is linked to from other projects. This does not seem like it is useful long-term and if such a link is warranted, it should likely be in WP space.

As a soft redirect, it's not eligible under the WP:CSD, but interwiki links in the mainspace are something we want to avoid. - Eureka Lott 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XNR. Narky Blert (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XNR. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I converted this to {{meta- redirect}}, which is the proper way to soft redirect to meta in the mainspace. This should not be taken as a reflection on whether or not such a redirect is appropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Levolution (Australian Release date August 20th) → Juke Kartel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This started as a duplicate article about the album, and then was redirected to its page about fifteen minutes later. Since then, it's only gotten 37 pageviews as of July 2015, and I'm not sure if we really need it anymore. Regards, SONIC678 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the odd way that this is worded, I question whether or not it's useful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weird qualifier. Narky Blert (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping and promotional. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete due to not useful qualifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (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.