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 Humanist (disambiguation). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Humanist (typeface classification) → Sans-serif#Humanist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Humanist typeface → Vox-ATypI classification#Humanist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

"Humanist" refers to two things under the Vox-ATypI classification, and there are two sections with the same name under the current target of the second redirect. Humanist serif is a subtype of Serif#Old-style, while humanist sans-serif is described in more detail at Sans-serif#Humanist. Is either one the more common meaning? Paul_012 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nominator; delete or better still put in a disambiguation page. Blythwood (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Humanist (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, and add the correct links onto that page. (The current entry there at Humanist (typeface classification) will need to be deleted.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Humanist (disambiguation) per Narky. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:02, 28 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. Incoming links have already been addressed. Deryck C. 13:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of presidents, vice presidents, first spouses and second spouses of the Philippines by longevity → List of presidents of the Philippines by longevity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete the redirect page, the article name has been reverted to only cover presidents. First spouses and second spouses are neologisms. The target page is also planned to be converted as a plausible redirect for List of presidents of the Philippines by age. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (my opinion is now speedy keep)Delete Redirect is so complicated that hardly anybody would be willing to search it or type it in. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per K4; this was the title of an article for plenty of time so there will be a lot of old links and readers annoyed by the lack of a redirect. @Hariboneagle927, HueMan1, and Prahlad balaji: please reconsider your !votes; currently dozens of readers are being inconvenienced – being at RfD disables the redirect. Retarget to List of presidents of the Philippines by age due to the double redirect. — J947 ^[cont] 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  J947, what articles link to this redirect? Please tell me, and I might reconsider my argument. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Not mainly articles, but other websites. Read K4 for information. Also, please don't remove indentation – doing that causes accessibility problems. — J947 ^[cont] 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed my opinion, it's now speedy keep because there are still many articles linking to this redirect. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list referenced by the redirect title no longer exists due to the removal of the spouse information. The link should be red to signify that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There were a lot of articles linking this redirect due to a transclusion in Template:Philippine Presidents and Vice Presidents Lists. I have removed that link, which should take care of most, if not all, of the links. I'll check again after the 'what links here' page is updated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have considered !voting for keep if it wasn't for the "second spouse" part, which doesn't exist. I have fixed the remaining legitimate on-wiki link to that redirect, and I don't think there's any reason for this useless redirect to be kept. Keeping this redirect will only mislead our readers that there is a "second spouse" in the Philippines, even though there's not. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brewing stand → Minecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Minor gameplay element that isn't mentioned at the target. Could conceivably also refer to real-life brewing tools, but even if it doesn't I think that the lack of content at the target is reason enough for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of lack of information at target, because it is not a likely search term for Minecraft, and because it interferes with searches for actual brewing stands {like the one I used to have when I did brew beer). On the last point, there may not currently be any text in the Wikipedia that has such content, but as the more common meaning, we should keep that open. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I almost considered nominating this for rfd 2 days ago. But yeah, I knew it wasn't mentioned then. This is an item in Minecraft where someone trying to learn about it would search the Minecraft wiki instead. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as obscure gameplay mechanic. In real life, it seems to be a part of a brewing setup that could be added to the Brewing article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . This isn't a diamond sword in notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Common term not restricted to Minecraft. —Lowellian (reply) 03:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The brewing stand in Minecraft is only one minor thing in the game, and there are search results that could be more useful. CrazyBoy826

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 Convert to article which has been started at History of censorship in Poland. Thanks User:Piotrus for writing most of this new article. Deryck C. 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Censorship in Poland → Censorship in Communist Poland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target page had hatnote-style text: ""Censorship in Poland" redirects here, as censorship is far more relaxed in present-day Poland compared to the PPR. This article is about historical censorship in the communist People's Republic of Poland (1944–1990)." I have removed the hatnote because it doesn't "help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for" (WP:HATNOTE). The intent of that hatnote would be better executed by deleting this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a general Censorship in Poland article is something that we should encourage creating by making it a redlink. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill. We should encourage article creation by deleting this redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. There is no censorship in present Poland. There was some marginal censorship in the Second Polish Republic ([1], [2], [3] - maybe I'll stub it). Then we can convert the redirect into a disambig (if one really wants to nitpick, the censorship existed for few months in modern Poland, until the relevant law was changed [4]). But note that beyond a disambig there is little that can be done with this redirect, not unless in the future Poland introduces a new censorship agency :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is no censorship in today’s democratic Poland, communist PRL censorship should be noted with a separate article.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's one example of censorship in contemporary Poland [5]. Censorship is a tool of statecraft; rare is the government that doesn't engage in it to one extent or another, even if only to protect the leaking of state secrets or to keep nudity off of the TV. Just look at the long list of countries with articles linked at Template:Censorship by country. Poland actually stands out in that list as one of the only countries to not redirect to a general article about censorship over the course of its history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, certain topics you mentioned I can't discuss with you due to myself being censored on Wikipedia (joke :)) but I agree that a new article "Censorship in Poland" could be created but "Censorship in Communist Poland" should be kept separate in my opinion.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think anyone is proposing changes to Censorship in Communist Poland here, just that the redirect would be better off as a redlink. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're voting to delete? François Robere (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• *Delete - despite User:GizzyCatBella's false statement, Poland censors Polish crimes in the Holocaust: Reps. Hoyer, Price and Schneider: Poland’s Censorship Law Ignores Its History and Undermines Its Future, Time, The Dark Consequences of Poland's New Holocaust Law, The Atlantic, Poland censors Israeli mayor who sought to cite Polish Holocaust crimes at event, Times of Israel. 49.228.170.221 (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) per WP:DENY and WP:BANREVERT GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GizzyCatBella: The IP hasn't been blocked,[6] so your striking of their comment may be a violation of your T-ban. François Robere (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere - The comment of this single purpose IP, is most likely a sock or meat puppet of a banned user and was directed at me. I didn't comment on the body of the remark. YOU, on the other hand, suppose to stay away from me. [7] So please, stay away from me and stop following me around!GizzyCatBella🍁 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being paranoid, Bella - it's a public forum, you're hardly the only one who comments here. Instead of charging, try to WP:AGF and imagine how this looks.[8] Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rosguill. A quick Google search suggests there's at least enough for a stub,[9][10][11] and there are other instances of limitation of free speech or access to information that may merit mention.[12][13][14][15] François Robere (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The modern government aside, there could well have been censorship in the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939) or in independent Poland before the Third Partition (1795), and pointing readers to an article about the 1945-1989 regime is misleading. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to note that I agree that more historical articles are needed, I found sources for pre-1918 era too ([16]), but I still don't see the need for anything more than a disambig, since there is no censorship in modern Poland (outside abuse of this word by an occasional newspaper or disgruntled politician). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hazard a guess that Poland has at least as much censorship as Sweden. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as there is no censorship in today’s Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no war in Ba Sing Se. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Narky Blert (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have created the History of censorship in Poland. So realistically, the discussed redirect at CiP could either become a disambig or we can talk at the discussion page of the new article whether it should be moved as main (renamed to CiP). PS. Pinging participants so they can reconsider the best course of action given the existence of the new article: @Shhhnotsoloud, Rosguill, OcelotCreeper, Lenticel, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Narky Blert, and MyMoloboaccount:--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support redirecting to there to close this discussion, on the fence about whether or not it's similar enough in scope to other Censorship in X articles for it to be appropriate to move it to Censorship in Poland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. Let the editors create an article about the Censorship in Poland. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of censorship in Poland as best target. Searchers can select the time period that they want, such as Censorship in Communist Poland, from the table of contents. --Bejnar (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of censorship in Poland per Bejnar. Though I think History of censorship in Poland should be moved to Censorship in Poland. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move History of censorship in Poland over redirect, which would be the correct article to include current day censorship. That article does have information as late as 2019, which I consider close enough to present-day anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as described by Tavix. Since people are starting to vote that way, we may as well take care of that issue here rather than punting it to another discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 10 June 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 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoarmurath → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Adunaphel → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Adunaphel the Quiet → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Adûnaphel → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Adûnaphel the Quiet → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Akhorahil → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Akhôrahil → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Dwar → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Er-Murazor → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Hoarmurath of Dir → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Hoarmûrath → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Hoarmûrath of Dír → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ji Indur Dawndeath → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ji Indûr Dawndeath → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ren (Middle-earth) → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ren the Unclean → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, and shouldn't be - this is a non-canonical adaptation in a game, so isn't really relevant to the main topic of Nazgul. Too minor to mention in the game articles per WP:VGSCOPE. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and off-topic. Quite a crop of these you've harvested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Chiswick Chap. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:TNT If these are names ascribed to the Nine for certain media games then it can redirect there if notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article did mention them before May 21. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:49, 28 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Greg’s best friend → List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters#Rowley Jefferson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Besides the fact that the wrong apostrophe seems to be used here, there are many Gregs besides Greg Heffley, and most of them presumably have best friends. Ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Naddruf. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redirect is ambiguous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no character named as such as their common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shouldn't there be a speedy delete for unambuously ambiguous redirects, like this one? --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 31 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 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dwar of Waw → Nazgûl#Names not created by Tolkien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere. Non-canonical name invented by the creators of Middle-earth Role Playing. Not really relevant for the Nazgul article (fan speculation, basically), and WP:UNDUE to mention at the game article per WP:VGSCOPE. Hog Farm (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hard to see a home for this if even MERP doesn't mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as per http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2013/09/miniature-friday-dwar-of-waw.html it should have been mentioned in MERP first, but it isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no navigational function, and such a nice name too. --Bejnar (talk) 16:42, 31 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 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Romantic selection in humans → Sexual selection in humans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect, created rather recently on 8 May, should be deleted. There is no such thing as "romantic selection", let alone romantic selection in humans, and thus the target article does not discuss any such thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is such thing as how humans select romantic partners, and this should redirect to whichever article discusses that. Benjamin (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a term in evolutionary biology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete romantic selection isn't a term. Searches point to the phrase "Romantic partner selection" instead, and Romantic partner redirects to love. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To those of you voting delete, why shouldn't it simply point somewhere else instead? Benjamin (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because no-one can think of a suitable target? Narky Blert (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, if so, that seems like a gaping hole in the encyclopedia if there ever was one. Benjamin (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to the larger "bleeding holes" that exist here. There is too much to do, and it needs to be done well. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So suggest a target or write an article. All constructive contributions are welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking an appropriate target, mostly because it is an inchoate notion. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the adjective 'inchoate' will often transmogrify a discussion. I once got it into a technical report at work. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 31 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pē̆trŏcŏ́rĭī → Périgueux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Diacritics don't seem to make any sense, and the now blocked user who made this redirect appears to have made many other similar redirects in the past which got deleted (eg: here and here). I can only get one google search result for this exact spelling, which is some random person's Facebook page. Nothing links here, and looking at the page views, I appear to be the only person to have come across this page title in the past 90 days. Seagull123 Φ 00:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Glades12 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Red link this particular spelling, but I see no harm in moving it without leaving a redirect to Pĕtrŏcŏrĭī and then redirecting to Petrocorii. I presume that's what was originally meant: I think it's from Le Gaffiot. Pĕtrŏcŏrĭī is certainly not an obvious spelling, very rare, but I don't think the current spelling is used at all, anywhere. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not this spelling. Useless. --Bejnar (talk) 16:57, 31 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.