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 soft delete. Deryck C. 18:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxygen Recordings → Spinnin' Records#Sub-labels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Oxygen (record label) → Spinnin' Records#Sub-labels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Oxygen (Record Label) → Spinnin' Records#Sub-labels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not listed at target; removed from target after a cleanup of unsourced content. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 19 July 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 soft delete. Deryck C. 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Liquid Recordings → Spinnin' Records#Sub-labels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not listed at target; removed from target after a cleanup of unsourced content. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:03, 19 July 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 soft delete. Deryck C. 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trap City (music group) → Spinnin' Records  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not listed at target; removed from target after a cleanup of unsourced content. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:03, 19 July 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. No prejudice against repurposing of LAWYERS; personally, I don't see the need. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:CHAMBERS → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Chambers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:LAWYERS → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Lawyers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:LEGISLATURE → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Legislatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:TREATY → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Treaties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:LGNC → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#General criteria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Wikipedia:STATUTE → Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Sources of law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Sections deleted; the redirects don't seem to make much sense any more. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TREATY and WP:CHAMBERS as unused. The others all have uses so need more investigation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:LAWYERS per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 18#Wikipedia:LAWYERS and the large number of links. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rest as used. Yes, this is a failed proposal but there is active discussion about it and the links make sense in context, context that would be lost if these are deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep Useful redirs. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Since this is a failed proposal, it seems misleading to use shortcuts of this nature. I would prefer to have redlinks to signify that we do not have specific notability guidelines for these groups of people and laws. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I would be fine with WP:LAWYERS targeting Wikipedia:Wikilawyering per Normal Op. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All six of these land on a "project page" with a top banner "This is a failed proposal." WP:LAWYER (without the "S" on the end) is used extensively and points elsewhere. I can imagine how many people accidentally put an "S" on the end and wound up directing readers to a failed proposal instead of to an oft-used Wikipedia essay. (Also, all the other notability shortcuts start with an "N", such as NBIO, NPROF, NBOOK, NEVENTS, NMUSIC.) Normal Op (talk) 17:35, 26 July 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 European discovery of America and Discovery of the New World, and relist the other two. All participants agree that the current targets are inaccurate, but as was mentioned by some participants, but there's clearly multiple outcomes that can be drawn from this discussion for each target, and it may in hindsight have been cleaner to nominate some separately. Rather than relist it again wholesale, I've closed two of them where I do think there's a useful consensus. There's universal agreement to retarget European discovery of America to European colonization of the Americas, and also significant agreement to target Discovery of the New World there too - it was hard to use the alternative suggestion, that of "an appropriate section of New World", given there doesn't seem to be an obvious such section. The use of the term "New World", in any case, generally implies a European perspective.

There is no clear consensus on the other two, with reasonable arguments being made for both potential targets - but there is a consensus that the current target is not correct, so I'm just going to relist those two as a new discussion. I will ping the participants in this one. ~ mazca ^talk 14:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Discoverers of the Americas → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Discoverer of the americas → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• European discovery of America → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Discovery of the New World → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should link to a more appropriate place that references the multiple native settlements and European voyages to the Americas. For instance, the pages European colonization of the Americas or Settlement of the Americas would be an appropriate target. The latter already has the redirects Discovery of the Americas and Discovery of America. Here is a full list of redirects currently to Voyages of Christopher Columbus that should be changed:

• Discoverers of the Americas
• Discoverer of the americas
• European discovery of America
• Discovery of the New World

Best, -- ɱ (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we may need to reevaluate what is linked from all of these. For instance, the article Silver uses "which Roman miners produced on a scale unparalleled before the discovery of the New World". This is antiquated, as Europeans did not discover the land already familiar to humans and settled since long ago. ɱ (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first two ones to Settlement of the Americas, third one to European colonization of the Americas, and the rest to an appropriate section of New World. It would be better to nominate them separately. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget 1st and 2nd Settlement of the Americas, 3rd to European colonization of the Americas, and 4th (etc.) to an appropriate section of New World (per Soumya-8974 above). Like, not only are the current redirect targets not helpful, they're factually incorrect. Like, Leif Erikson existed and was a European who "discovered" the Americas wayyyy before Columbus did. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Discoverers of the Americas and its singular lowercase-America sister to Settlement of the Americas, European discovery of America to European colonization of the Americas, and Discovery of the New World to whichever section of New World is appropriate per above. Like Paintspot says, the Vikings arrived to the Americas about 500 years before Columbus, and also settlement took place years before Columbus even set foot there. Contrary to the story we may have heard as children, Columbus didn't really discover the "New World." Regards, SONIC678 02:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally agree with the above suggestions, but I don't see any part of New World that appears particularly relevant to the 4th search term. I would suggest targeting it to European colonization of the Americas as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What Rosguill said. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to European colonization of the Americas. Settlement of the Americas is cheeky and appealing, but likely contrary to what readers are looking for. Yes, of course, Columbus and his ilk were not the first to "discover" the Americas, but we still use such language in English (cf. WP:RGW). The hatnotes between the articles should take care of the rest. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 28 July 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. While a valid theoretical argument for this use of "Burushi" was made, most participants feel that the lack of usage in English, and the variety of other competing minor uses, make this redirect not a net positive. ~ mazca ^talk 15:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Burushi language → Burushaski  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Burushi → Burushaski  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The only Scholar results that I can find for "Burushi" refer to an ethnic group in East Africa (and one that doesn't appear to have its own ethnic language [1]); I don't see any evidence that this term refers to the Burushaski in English. Delete unless appropriate evidence can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is quite common in Persian-influenced cultures for a language to be named by suffixing the ethnic group or region with "-i"; consider, for example, the historical use of "Afghani" or "Pathani" to refer to Pashto, as well as the names Hindustani and Hindi. Closer to where Burushaski is spoken, Koshur is better known as "Kashmiri", and Khowar is frequently referred to as "Chitrali" (after the area of Chitral). It is thus not much of a stretch to assume that the language of the Burusho, therefore, would be alternatively named "Burushi". M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. A DDG search suggests that "Burushi" can be a surname, a Japanese company, and a Slavic inflection of the name of the Burusho people of South Asia. As Rosguill suggested, there is no evidence of any English-language usage, instead Burushi may also refer to an unrelated tribe in Africa. so this should be deleted per WP:FORRED. Deryck C. 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page talks about redirects in languages other than English that point to topics that are not especially associated with that language (or a culture that speaks that language). I already explained above why "Burushi" is a perfectly valid name in languages of the region which are very much associated with the target, so the point is moot. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Burushaski is a language isolate, not an Indo-Aryan language! We don't have a redirect at eusquera (Castillian Spanish adjective for "Basque") either. Deryck C. 00:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Deryck Chan. M Imtiaz's argument is compelling enough but outweighed by the potential confusion with the African group, lack of English-language usage, and complete absence from Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 28 July 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 01:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stormbirds (video game) → THQ#THQ Digital Studios UK  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not covered on the target article. IceWelder [✉] 20:47, 19 July 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 Space Shuttle. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NASA Shuttles → Space Shuttle program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Space Shuttle according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Someone using this search term is almost certainly looking for information about the vehicles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 July 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 Orbiter (simulator). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shuttle A → Space Shuttle program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

See the RfD of Shuttle-A. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The referenced discussion is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Shuttle-A which reached a consensus to retarget from Space Shuttle program to Orbiter (simulator). I presume therefore that Soumya-8974 is proposing this redirect be retargeted to the same target? Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:41, 20 July 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 Space Shuttle. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• United States Space Shuttle → Space Shuttle program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Space Shuttle according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Space Shuttle as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:39, 21 July 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. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NASA/Rockwell Shuttle → Space Shuttle orbiter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Space Shuttle à la Rockwell Space Shuttle. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because it relates to the Rockwell-built orbiter, Rockwell Space Shuttle needs correcting as well. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MilborneOne. Instead, the other one should point to this target. Rockwell did not build the entire shuttle stack. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 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 Challenger. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The challenger → Space Shuttle Challenger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Challenger. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the dab page at Challenger - this is very ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB page Challenger. Highly ambiguous; could refer to a participant in a boxing, chess, or (in the dim and distant) Wimbledon tennis match, or to any of the ships. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 19 July 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 20:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• San Antonio Theater Shooting → Santikos Theatres#2012 shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 2012 San Antonio Theater Shooting → Santikos Theatres#2012 shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 2012 San Antonio Theatre Shooting → Santikos Theatres#2012 shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page and two others link to Santikos Theatres about an event that has since been deleted within the article by an administrator. These redirects need to be deleted. Inexpiable (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

x3 entries merged together. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sections "2010 shooting" and "2012 shooting" were in fact removed in this edit by this user, a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account whose user name and subsequent edits appear to indicate an intention to promote the venue. However, since there has been no effort or consensus to restore that material, without it these directs may cause confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 July 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 20:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of unreleased Britney Spears → List of songs recorded by Britney Spears  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Looks like an incomplete spelling of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Not really coherent or necessary. NØ 08:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the correct, complete version exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but if it isn't deleted it should be retargetted to List of unreleased songs recorded by Britney Spears as the current target contains only commercially released recordings. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above me (1^st choice). A list of unreleased Britney Spears what? Songs? Albums? Singles? EPs? Anyways, if it's worth keeping, weak retarget to List of unreleased songs recorded by Britney Spears (2^nd choice) per Thryduulf. Regards, SONIC678 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreleased ... from what? Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And who is "Britney Spear" since there are apparently a plural amount of them and they are unreleased from something? Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely not Britney Spears herself! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 20 July 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• JT Eberhard → Skepticon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused redirect of person unlikely to meet WP:GNG. I’m particularly uncomfortable with the current categorization scheme. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The nominator gives no policy-based reason for deletion listed at WP:R#DELETE. Why does whether the person meets GNG important? He organized the event in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and was a speaker in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. This is documented in the article. And by "unused" you must mean unlinked-to, but it has 200+ pageviews over the past year, which means that it is used. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Criteria 2 seems applicable here. More importantly though I don’t think we want non notable people appearing in categories like Category:Missouri State University alumni. His association to the event does not seem strong enough to me to merit a redirect. If the category issue can be sorted out then I’m impartial when it comes to deletion. Please note I didn’t propose deletion so I’m not sure what it is you’re opposing or why I would need to cite deletion policy, I think you’re responding to an argument I’m not making. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then what are you proposing Grey Wanderer? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Removal of the cats. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not in the scope of RfD. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in article several times. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Well used, unambiguous redirect with a clear target where it is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk)
• Delete non-noteworthy person with only passing mention as one of many speakers at an event. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 19 July 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.