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 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Branched-chain alcohol → N-Butanol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This must be retargeted, probably to alcohol. N-butanol is not a branched-chain alcohol, nor are butanols in general the only branched-chain alcohols. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This originally redirected to Butanol, but was changed to N-butanol as result of bot error due to vandalism. The original redirect wasn't accurate, though, so delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd be fine with deleting this redirect, as the term would probably be of more use as a red link than a redirect to alcohol, unless someone has a better target in mind. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 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 Fusel alcohol. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Higher alcohol → N-Butanol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"higher alcohols" clearly encompasses more than just n-butanol, or butanols in general, and should be retargeted. It is often used in the context of fermentation and alcoholic beverages. Possible targets are fusel alcohol or congener (beverages). Mdewman6 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This originally redirected to Butanol, but was changed to N-butanol as result of bot error due to vandalism. The original redirect wasn't accurate, though, so delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fusel alcohol, per below. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do think this redirect has value and should be retargeted to fusel alcohol as the two terms are nearly synonymous in the context of alcoholic beverages/fermentation (even if not quite technically synonymous). Someone could reasonably search for higher alcohol seeking the information at fusel alcohol. Retargeting to congener (beverages) would be less ideal because congeners include compounds besides alcohols. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fusel alcohol article doesn't currently mention higher alcohol. If the terms are closely related it should be explained there. Then retargeting would be appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: I edited the page to include higher alcohols as an alternative name with an additional ref that uses both terms. I think in this context the terms are synonymous. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MacOS Masada → MacOS Mojave  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not an alternative name for the target as far as I can tell, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's definitely not any widely-used name for the OS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Never seen it used 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find usage of this name in sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:21, 20 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Middletown Go My Top → MGMT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I can't find any evidence that this backronym is accurate or has seen any use. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Middletown Go My Top" is not mentioned in Enwiki and this redirect is not helpful if there is no mention of the phrase at MGMT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I live in this area, and I have never heard this used. You can put me down for delete as this was made by an LTA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This could be entirely made up. -2pou (talk) 19:56, 28 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HP Record → Musica Studio's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• HP Records → Musica Studio's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 19 September 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 Moot following article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jubël (duo) → List of number-one singles of 2019 (Finland)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Jubël (band) → List of number-one singles of 2019 (Finland)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This Swedish group is probably better known for a cover of "Dancing in the Moonlight" than the cover mentioned in the Finnish list. Probably better to delete and make a redlink to encourage article creation. (There is an entry for the band at Jubel disambiguation page which will go red but still enable readers to find Dancing in the Moonlight). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repoint to Dancing in the Moonlight. Still a valid search term, and could be expanded into an article. Pointless to delete at this stage. Ss112 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as main article after full article launch: I have made a majour revamp establishing a detailed article for Jubël and references. I suggest reviewing the article just published and reassess comments made. Hopefully my suggested text can be approved as a stand-alone article without redirects. I also suggest adopting Jubël (duo) as main article and redirecting Jubël (band) to Jubël (duo) werldwayd (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Werldwayd: Thank you very much for the draft article at Jubël (duo). I agree that there is an article here, but I think a more consistent title would be Jubël (band). I note that a separate Draft:Jubël was declined. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jubël (band) can work I guess, but I tend towards duo rather than band. A question: Do two people technically make a band or not? For example Simon and Garfunkel is a band or a duo? Plus that this Jubël is not a conventional music band, but more based on record production side of music, I would say mostly studio work of taking old tunes and adapting them as EDMs. They don't play instruments like guitar or keyboards or drums and are not a musical band in a conventional sense. werldwayd (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy with either. (band) seems more popular as a disambiguator than (duo) but either is fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think an administrator should close this discussion so that we implement the changes. I prefer that it stays as Jubël (duo) werldwayd (talk) 09:28, 24 September 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 18:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperate Wives → Cougars, Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It is not clear why this redirects here: there is no mention in the article. I suggest it is deleted: if it is then please also delete the hatnote at the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:33, 19 September 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 18:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlicensed → Practicing without a license  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Unlicensed" as an adjective or adverb has a wider application than just "practicing without a license" (e.g. unlicensed vehicle). There are a number of other enwiki articles and redirect that begin with or contain "Unlicensed" (e.g. All pages with titles beginning with unlicensed). I suggest this redirect is deleted as ambiguous and to allow uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak soft retarget to Wiktionary (1^st choice) where the applications are defined or delete (2^nd choice), it might be worth keeping for some purpose. If that isn't the case, I don't know what's the correct target if any. Regards, SONIC678 16:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom, too ambiguous. MB 03:48, 24 September 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 snow keep. If the only shortcuts we had were unambiguous, we wouldn't have many shortcuts. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AC → Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Can also mean Wikipedia:Account creator Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed and Wikipedia:Authority control as well as other terms as well 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – please let's not retarget old project-space redirects. Changing this would break archives, old cases, and old conversations recorded as permalinks which cannot be edited. A hatnote is good enough for navigation. – bradv🍁 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There are also 41 subpages that would need to be moved or retargeted, with thousands of incoming links. WP:AC/DS alone has 7,626 incoming links. – bradv🍁 18:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for broadly the same reasons as bradv. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By my count, changing this would break 1,888 links. I'm not seeing any real reason as to how changing this would bring any real value, given it's long use. Projectspace redirects don't need to be perfect. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bradv and Hog Farm. Ambiguity is never a reason on its own to delete or retarget a shortcut redirect, and there are no other reasons given by the nominator. Given the very extensive, long-term use any change to this would be very costly to the extent that it's not even worth considering other options. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 19 September 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 18:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:EDIA → Wikipedia:About  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Makes no sense 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment if you write it as WP:EDIA then the intent becomes clear. I'm undecided at the moment whether it is worth keeping though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it makes sense for WP:EDIA to got to the same place as WP:WIKIPEDIA. Unless there's some alternative use that I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The "WP" is not part of the name in shortcuts, and we should stick to that standard for consistency. It's highly unlikely someone would type that accidently or think it'd work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think the redirect is meant for people stumbling upon it by accident, it's there as a cool shortcut and part of what makes it cool is that you probably wouldn't expect it to be there. – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - For some reason, there's a bunch of links to this in old Motto of the Day archives. I'm not seeing this as particularly useful, but it's not really hurting anything, so I don't see a reason to delete it, sort of like how WP:Slough of Despond links to ANI. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Project-space redirects can be creative. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – It is "WPEDIA" without the colon, verrry creative. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 25 September 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 snow keep. It's usually not a good idea to submit a frivolous nomination without a rationale when there is an open proposal to topic ban you from RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:FAMOUS → Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We should always be very careful about retargeting shortcut redirects as doing so can break old discussions, edit summaries and cause misunderstandings when some people use if for the old target and others the new. In this case, retargeting would break links in multiple old AfDs so the harm outweighs any potential benefits. Hatnotes can be added at the current target if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unnecessary, somewhat harmful, and no clear benefit to be accomplished here by retargeting. We don't need to have project shortcuts about words to watch to words to watch. I'm seeing no strong reason to retarget this. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:01, 19 September 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! 06:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of powerpuff girls → List of The Powerpuff Girls characters#The Powerpuff Girls  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is poorly capitalized and it doesn't make sense to have something called "list of powerpuff girls", there are only about 3 of them. ★Trekker (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly harmless and it does take people to exactly the content they are looking for. Not everybody will know how many there are (I wouldn't have done before your comment for example) and searching in all lower case is very common. Deletion will not bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is entirely logical. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was gonna cast my vote to delete but since at least 2 voted keep I'm not going to. Look I don't care anymore, I don't even use Wikipedia anymore asides from checking an actor or a director of a movie. So do with this as you want, I don't care. Also must point out that I made this redirect in 2007 and I was a fucking moron back then who didn't know what the hell he was doing. I never should have contributed so much to the site back then as I did more harm than good. And most of the redirects I made back then rightfully got deleted. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:13, 19 September 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 Main page (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Main Page (disambiguation) → Main page (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Main Page (disambiguation) → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I do not have proof why this page redirects to the home page. This title ends in "(disambiguation)" and disambiguation pages should not redirect to Wikipedia's home page. See this and that for more detail. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:G6. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Home page (disambiguation) given that "home page" and "main page" are synonyms in some contexts listed there. (Main page (website) redirects to Home page). Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I speedy-deleted this because the original creator blanked it almost immediately and indicated on the talk page that they supported its deletion. It existed for less than a month. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can take that as a draft delete, but restore the page at the end of this RFD discussion if the result is "keep" or "no consensus". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Thryduulf's suggestion for redirecting to Home page (disambiguation) makes sense: looking at a web search, I get the impression that "main page" is used both for a home page and for a directory index, and both of these are listed in the dab. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this discussion was closed on 12 Sept, apparently in error. I've reopened it now, but worth considering relisting to allow it to run its course. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Seventyfiveyears, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Mackensen, Thryduulf, and Uanfala: I have created the redirect anew with a target towards my new disambiguation page. I'm relisting here because there wasn't any consensus to do anything specific. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, the newly created dab page is a good target. – Uanfala (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's obviously the perfect target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Main page (disambiguation) per above and be sure to add {{other uses}} on the top of Main Page so people can find the disambiguation! 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 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! 06:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Court packing → Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Court-packing → Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems too generic a redirect to target one specific event. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree an article should be written on the topic, but until then where else should this point? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now in the absence of any better target. I would encourage any interested editor to boldly convert the redirect into an article. Mz7 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: appropriate redirect at this time, since the target article mentions "court packing" (bolded) in its first sentence. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 22 September 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) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 Atlantic hurricane season → Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic Ocean  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:TOOSOON! Still another 4 years until this happens. Soon people are creating redirects for the 2025, 2030, 2026, 2040, and 2050 seasons (which all will happen), but is strongly discouraged. Creat this in at the earliest late 2021. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since storm names for the 2024 season are mentioned at target, and given that this is a redirect and not an article, it’s perfectly WP:HARMLESS. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CycloneYoris is right. Nevermind, closing discussion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:32, 19 September 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.