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. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dharm Yoddha Garud(2022 Series) → Dharm Yoddha Garud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Dharm Yoddha Garud (2022 Series), does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete it was at this title for a few minutes in 2022 and also has a capitalization error which is also RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Dharm Yoddha Garud (2022 TV series) without leaving a redirect. Alternative suggestion is delete. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dharm Yoddha Garud(TV Series 2022) → Dharm Yoddha Garud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Dharm Yoddha Garud (TV Series 2022), does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete it was at this title for a few hours in 2022 and the capitalization is also a an RDAB error. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Dharm Yoddha Garud (TV series) without leaving a redirect. Alternative suggestion is delete. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Some Japanese secret agents(1930s to ww2 period) → List of Japanese spies, 1930–1945  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, List of Some Japanese secret agents (1930s to ww2 period), does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was at this title for about an hour in 2005. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of Japanese spies (1930–1945) without leaving a redirect. Alternative suggestion is delete. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and don't move redirect as the new title is completely different to the original, better to just wipe as the page history is not worth finaggling to maintain, plus unideal via WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Masoom(1996 film) → Masoom (1996 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Masoom (1996 film), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was at this title for a few hours in 2012. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of Sialkot(1761) → Battle of Sialkot (1761)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Battle of Sialkot (1761), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as "creator", redirect was result of a page move to the correct name. There are no incoming links to worry about so this is not needed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sentiz (talk · contribs) is the creator as that was the original title of the article. Per WP:G7, for redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was at this title for less than an hour in 2005. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wild Mountain Honey(1976 song) → Fly Like an Eagle (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Wild Mountain Honey (1976 song), does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the title though exiting since 2011 mostly been a redirect and only shortly been an article a few times, Wild Mountain Honey (Steve Miller Band Song) should also be moved to Wild Mountain Honey (Steve Miller Band song) without redirect as having history which was moved from this title in 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the nominated redirect to Wild Mountain Honey (song), due to the red link. Alternative suggestion is delete. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkey City Writerchr(27)s Workshop → Turkey City Writer's Workshop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems like an unlikely HTML error of some sort. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that I created it, with edit summary seems silly but i did click a link to it from outside. Now I wish I had mentioned where I found that link. —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not a helpful redirect with this HTML error, random in absence of context. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History of the Jin Dynasty(265-420) → History of the Jin dynasty (266–420)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, History of the Jin Dynasty (265-420), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• COmment It is linked from the creator's userpage: User:Teeninvestor. Might be worth preserving just so anyone browsing their page doesnt think the page itself got deleted. However, he has not edited for fourteen years, so those people would be few. —Soap— 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is a concern, the path forward would be to update the link on the user page to reflect the article's current name, but that's probably not necessary since readers can see the logs if this redirect gets deleted, see that the page got moved, and follow that paper trail. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete it was at this title from May to November 2009. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4, as the redirect is longstanding and the article was formerly at this title. The redirect does no harm, and keeping it reduces the risk of breaking incoming links from other websites. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I wouldn't consider a 2009 WP:RDAB redirect to be given old-age immunity. Making an error that long ago I don't think equates to keeping forever; could be worth just updating the links as no context is affected. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to History of the Jin Dynasty (266–420) without leaving a redirect. Alternative suggestion is delete. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Commenting that I'm opposed to a move to a completely different year range than what currently is in this RDAB situation, as that's doing more than just adding a space. The remaining history does not need to be obscured in this way; better to show it no longer exists through deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Appleseed(2004) → Appleseed (2004 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Appleseed (2004), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB and as an unhelpful search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was at this title for a few hours in 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Slogarithm → Super-logarithm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think this redirect should be deleted. I can find no evidence that the super-logarithm has ever been called "slogarithm" (Google search). Wikipedia should reflect word usage, not create it. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 retarget to Gwalior–Chhindwara Express. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chhindwara - Gwalior Express → Passenger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This train is not mentioned in the target or any other article. Even the version of the article at the time of the redirect's creation didn't mention any train named "Chhindwara - Gwalior Express". I suggest a retarget to Gwalior–Chhindwara Express. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) – Updated 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gwalior–Chhindwara Express as a {{R from modification}}. The target is a sub-stub that should be merged somewhere, but this redirect will be retargetted by a bot to whatever place that is when it happens so we don't need to worry about it here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Somehow I didn't notice that article. It is in a very poor state, but now I'm inclined to support a retarget to it. I have amended my nomination accordingly. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dsuke1998AEOS: Probably should WP:JUSTDOIT and close this nomination at this point. Can't see why anyone would agree with the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've closed this discussion as "speedy retarget". Hopefully there are no objections. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. User has been blocked 2 weeks, so I'm just going to handle this as a slow-speedy-delete G7. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Day New York Cried → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Pointless redirect.. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the primary topic on Google for this phrase is a single by Brian Eldredge. The only person of that name mentioned on Wikipedia is an English bell founder who (assuming they are the same person as Bryan Eldredge) died in 1640. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, a small single album with four songs released in 2005.

  What are your thoughts on this redirect? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GabrielPenn4223: If you now think this redirect is pointless, why did you create it? (Self-requests can be deleted per CSD G7, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Pixel 8a → Pixel 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It's not a redirect created by moved from the draft article to the main article, it's just a redirect created by an IP user. Also, I think this draft article was redirected to wrong article. Hajoon0102 💬 14:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as doesn't seem like a useful redirect. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2600:4040 also created Draft:Meganibble, and this draft should be deleted as well. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete huh? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the Pixel 8a deserves its own article which is why I created this. JoshuaAuble (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Editors remain evenly divided between keep, delete, and a retarget suggestion to Morphology (biology) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anatomy and physiology → Anatomy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect has WP:XY issues since Anatomy and Physiology are separate articles. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} as the result of a WP:BLAR performed in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget morphology (biology), which covers both. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC), ed. 07:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY norm. The talk page comment by Pinball22 justifying the BLAR is a good argument for deletion despite history. ― Synpath 23:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Targeting Morphology is effectively a retarget to Morphology (biology), as no other links on that DAB are relevant. Morphology (biology) does mention both topics in the lead, but ultimately I think deletion is a fine resolution. ― Synpath 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, yes, I meant Morphology (biology). Fixed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the lede: Anatomy and physiology, which study the structure and function of organisms and their parts respectively, make a natural pair of related disciplines, and are often studied together. I'm not opposed to retargeting, but am definitely opposed to deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix or retarget to Morphology (biology). I think the lead at Anatomy is slightly clearer for someone using this search term than Morphology (biology) is, but there isn't that much in it. I oppose deletion, as it is very plausible people will be searching these terms together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Retarget? Also notified of this discussion at the Morphology (biology) talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we have distinct articles on the two topics. I appreciate Tavix's !vote and no doubt they are correct, but being closely related does not overcome the fact that they are nevertheless distinct. It also seems like an unlikely search term - people can search for these topics separately as needed. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being closely related enough that they are often studied together does make this a likely search term, especially amongst students who may be interested in how they intersect. Because there is information on this, I see no reason not to direct searchers directly to that information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of the page views (often over 100 a month, occasionally over 200) strongly suggests that this is a plausible search term. Just because two things can be searched separately does not mean that everybody does search for the separately or that there is no value in searching for them together. Especially when we have information about both topics in one article, as we do here, we best serve our readers by taking them to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SQ/200 → El Rubius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't know what "SQ/200" stands for, and it isn't mentioned in the target nor on any other article. The search results are not enlightening either. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find absolutely no connection between "SQ/200" and anybody or anything called "Rubius" outside of Wikipedia, even then only this redirect. The article was created at this title, but it was only here for about 10 days in 2007. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 15:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini → Al Nassr FC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini without the title redirects to same target. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone used "Mr." is far more likely to signify a basic misunderstanding of naming conventions than it is to signify any usefulness. There may be external links to -any- redirect, that is not a basis to keep a redirect without more. And it is not harmless, because someone seeing these redirects may very well assume it is normal and create similar redirects. We do not redirects at Mr. Joe Biden or Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte for a reason. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone creates similar redirects, and something thinks the effort of nominating them here is a good use of their and other editors' time (hint: it really isn't) then I will recommend keeping them for the exact same reason as this one: they will be harmless and we don't redirects unless they are actively harmful in some way. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects which do not provide any help to readers either for navigation or otherwise have no reason to exist. Maybe I'm an idiot for nominating these, but I still maintain they serve no purpose. With that being said, we are all entitled to our opinions and I acknowledge yours. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ironically, there is in fact a redirect called Mr. Biden, but I digress on that. I do actually have a question though for User:El cid, el campeador, because I do agree with the general sentiment (that unnecessary prefixes aren't particularly useful redirects). I was scrolling through the list of redircts that start with "Mr", and it seems like these do pop up quite a bit, seemingly for random (and non-random) people, with this being one of such possibly "random" examples.

I'm curious why this redirect was nominated above all others? In similar situations such as Mr. Bob McGehee or Mr. Donald Trump or Mr. Edmund Bertram or Mr. Ernie Anastos, would you also recommend deletion for these? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: - honestly, there was and RFD for Mr Devil, and I wanted to see if there were redirects for other religious topics like Mr. Jesus (there is but not the religious figure), Mr. Buddha, and Mr. Muhammed. When I started typing in Mr. Muhammed I saw all the other pages starting with Mr. M and decided to nominate them. Just random chance, really. I am of the opinion that none of these pages should be kept unless there is a specific reason that person is addressed as 'Mr.'. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 02:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, that makes sense as well for this RfD. I was just curious if the reasoning had anything to do with "this person absolutely doesn't go by Mr" which would make it a higher need for deletion compared to the others, but if this is just a guy without any affinity towards being called a "Mr", probably good to weak delete this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When I search for pages starting with "Mr.", I get 2629 redirects. I picked 5 of them randomly (Mr. Amit Bando, Mr. Brodie Lee, Mr. E. Blackadder, Mr. Edward Roger Carney, Mr. John Trail) and found that the prefix of Mr. made sense in 4 of them. Mr. Amit Bando appears to be a case similar to the nomination. If someone shows me that most of the 2629 redirects are similarly erroneously created, with the creator unaware of titling conventions at the time, then I can let it go as a timesink exercise. Otherwise, I'm good with deleting these redirects that are harmful by cluttering the search. Jay 💬 09:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 15:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Mohammad Nematzadeh → Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. Page was originally misnamed and this is apparently the leftover redirect. Should be purged. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, seemingly no affinity towards being called Mr. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment, was pondering what to do about these discussions (I'm replying on this thread, but this still refers to the Mr above and the Mr below), but I do think a no-consensus is a fair outcome of this. Mainly because, and what's been bothering me slightly about these noms (nobody's fault), is that they're more so a single representative of a greater problem that hasn't been acted on, i.e. whether or not "Mr" redirects are useful and necessary. Do I think these redirects should be deleted? Probably. But does this discussion really push the needle one way or another? Not really, because this is just one instance of a bigger picture of person redirects containing prefixes, which have an enormous amount of variation in usefulness. In my opinion no consensus could be a fine close for that reason, and can be brought back later with a recontextualized scope. In the meantime there's not a lot to be gained or lost from keeping or deleting one of these redirects as it stands, probably the most indifferent I've felt towards a redirect that I acknowledge probably shouldn't exist (as being both unlikely to type and a bad precedent, worthless to maintain and etc), but don't really feel strongly about due to this being one of hundreds 😅. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18#Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini. Jay 💬 09:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 15:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Mohamed Zahir Hussain → Mohamed Zahir Hussain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No need for a redirect with "Mr." in the title, and COSTLY tells us we should not keep redirects like this which could be added for all bios. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but deleting them once they have been created is pointless at best and harmful at worst (someone found it useful to create, there may be external links). Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, they are not harmless, because somebody will see some of them and think that all the missing Mr/Mrs/Mz/Ms (with and without fullstops) need to be added. That's a lot of data being used for something which could be considered bordering on vandalism. Let's rid WP of bad examples and practices. Richhoncho (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been dealing with redirects for about 15 years now and in that time not once has anybody ever provided any evidence at all that the existence of one redirect leads to the mass creation of other similar redirects - unless you can it's just worthless fear-mongering. I'd also like to see some evidence that creating redirects like this is "bordering on vandalism" and evidence of how the creation of redirects that take people to the content they are looking for is "bad practice". Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not fear mongering. Have a look at this example of redirects on one artist page], contributed by an editor who has failed to grasp the meaning of 'avoided redirect' and created all them at the same time. There were other editors, who created every variant of a song title name, misspelled, unnecessary disambiguation etc and I am happy to show you various older examples.Most of these editors have stopped now because I have tagged appropriately and hopefully they realise that unnecessary title pages are not helping WP.

  BTW, A2R is growing by about 2000 members per month (nowhere near all my work!), which is appropriate to this discussion. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects from song titles are exactly the sort of redirects that we want Wikipedia to have. Redirects from plausible misspellings are highly beneficial to the project. Unnecessary disambiguations vary between harmless and very useful depending on how likely other topics are to have that title. None of this is evidence that redirects of either the type under discussion here or the type in your examples (and they are not quite the same thing) are harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We fundamentally disagree. A title is a title, it conveys no special meaning. A listing of every song title that has appeared on every album, with or without errors is hardly beneficial to an encyclopedia of any description. Render unto All Music that which is All Music's. In the example I have given, none, or few, of the song titles were mentioned in the target. What benefit?

  If I was to create redirects with Mr etc for every individual it would be considered vandalism, quite rightly, but here you are defending vandalism.

  A little consideration of what we fill the bucket with is no bad thing! Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no (practical) limit on the number of page titles that can exist (c.f. WP:NOTPAPER), there is no bucket to fill. The existence of one title does not impact our ability to have other titles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah but there is. Convolution is not a benefit to WP. Nor are unrequired redirects, but I accept your unwritten appreciation of approving vandalism.

  This convo is over, you will now read what I have written and appreciate that I did not oppose your keep vote, but pointed out the damage that such votes would do. But if you cannot nor will not consider all options then I am wasting my time. Happy editing. Richhoncho (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, seemingly no affinity to being called "Mr". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18#Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Al-Odaini. Jay 💬 09:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would probably agree with Thryduulf if this were a more specific title that did some disambiguation work—Dr., Rev., St., etc. Besides the fact that this person is a Dr., he also doesn't have a gender-neutral name, so it's not useful in that regard either. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 02:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dayaoshania → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Grenfellaspis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Byssacanthus → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Gerdalepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Hunanolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Jiangxilepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kirgisolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Luquanolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Nawagiaspis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Ningxialepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Pambulaspis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Remigolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Sherbonaspis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Dianolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Briagalepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Grossilepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Monarolepis → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Jiangxilepididae → Antiarchi#Phylogeny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

These redirects give the wrong impression that we have articles about these genera. Thus I would like to delete them. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Burn them with fire per nom. Nonsense. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Jiangxilepididae. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and remove the self-redirects at the target. Unless the suggestion was to redlink them to encourage article creation, which is not clear from the nomination. Jay 💬 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note If deleting, we may also want to get rid of unused Template:Taxonomy/Jiangxilepididae and Template:Taxonomy/Remigolepis. Certes (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all not meaningfully covered at target, should be redlinks to encourage article creation. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).