The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete and keep. Allscripts Healthcare Soluti has already been speedy deleted by Fastily per CSD G7. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. has a clear consensus to keep, and as SONIC678 says, the redirect got 110 pageviews last year, which is definitely a sign that this redirect is a useful and plausible search term. I see no reason to prolong discussion to 7 days. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allscripts Healthcare Soluti → Allscripts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. → Allscripts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search terms and unneccessary duplications of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly weak delete Allscripts Healthcare Soluti, while I can see someone forgetting to put the rest of the word "solutions" in their search (thus it might be helpful), the full word will appear in the search bar in most cases, and "soluti" isn't used much on Wikipedia in that context. However, keep Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., because it's an official name of the company, and is definitely helpful-it got 110 pageviews in 2019. Regards, SONIC678 22:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Allscripts Healthcare Soluti; I have tagged it with G7 as I created it in error. Keep the other one, as it is the official name of the company. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the first redirect has been G7ed by Fastily. — J947 ^[cont] 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. it is the companies full legal name, and we often see wikilinks made to companies full legal name so it is useful to have. Allscripts Healthcare Soluti has already been deleted an I support that. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Svgalbertian, the typo one seems already deleted. --Micky (talk) 23:44, 19 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 retarget to Electronic tagging. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Electronic monitoring of immigrants → Electronic monitoring in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Electronic monitoring of juveniles → Electronic monitoring in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

We shouldn't be redirecting from a general term to a specific country's context. Looking at Google Scholar, it seems that at a minimum electronic tagging of immigrants also occurs in the UK. However, we don't have any general article about this concept, and Electronic tagging only mentions this phenomenon briefly, with an internal link to Electronic monitoring in the United States placed following the creation of this redirect. I'm leaning towards deletion, but could be convinced to point this to Electronic tagging (or another target if someone can find one). For the juveniles example, I think there's slightly more content at Electronic tagging that would justify targeting there (and I'd lean toward that solution over deletion), but the cases are similar enough that I think they should be discussed together. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Electronic tagging which has examples for children and immigrants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Electronic tagging, a practice that isn't exclusive to the United States. Regards, SONIC678 22:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to electronic tagging per above valid arguments. --Micky (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 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 Procedural close - this belongs at WP:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NHB → No holds barred  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I am by no means convinced that this is a suitable WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; not least because when I came across it, one of the four links-in was intended for National Housing Bank. I suggest that NHB should be a basename, and that NHB (disambiguation) be WP:ROUNDROBIN swapped with it. (Until just now, NHB (disambiguation) was completely inaccessible from No holds barred.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Narky Blert: I agree with you, but I think this would be better as a requested move of NHB (disambiguation) to NHB over the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 18 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hazara province movemment → Hazara province movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

When this article Hazara province movement was created, the title mistakenly had a spelling mistake so was moved and this became redirect. So I think this redirect makes no sense. WP:CSD#1 USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G6 as an unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G6, unambiguously created in error; see the relevant ES. Narky Blert (talk) 19:55, 18 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yugoslawia → Yugoslavia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_25#Jugoslawia. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. buidhe 09:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as 'v' and 'w' aren't near each other. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:​ They are directly next to each other in a Dvorak keyboard layout, but I doubt many people use it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Could be that the creator used a Dvorak keyboard layout, but I think most Wikipedia users use QWERTY, AZERTY, or QWERTZ layouts instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not harmful, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. If it helps people get to the right page, it's fine! Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paintspot. Just because most people don't use Dvorak doesn't mean someone doesn't find this redirect to be useful. IMO, it's not as implausible as other redirects that got deleted for the same reason. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In several languages (e.g. German and Quechua), the name of the country is spelled with the letter w. ESL-speakers might easily misspell the name as Yugoslawia .  --Lambiam 19:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  German use Jugoslawien, not *Yugoslawia. If the misspelling gives advantage only to certain language, then it falls sharply to WP:RFFL. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is (obviously) not about a redirect in a language other than English, so WP:RFFL does not apply. This is about a redirect of a misspelling in English, one that some ESL-speakers might more readily make than others.  --Lambiam 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. I agree with Lambiam's analysis. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm swayed by Lambiam's and Tenryu's arguments above - Having looked at Dvorak keyboards on Google the v and w are next to each other so it's certainly a plausible typo, Keep & add {{R from misspelling}}. –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am also swayed by the arguments about the Dvorak keyboards. Remember, redirects are cheap. --Xannir (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; though I think the most probable use of this redirect is as a misnomer rather than a typo. — J947 ^[cont] 21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Several good arguments above, no need for this to extend 7 days and confuse anyone with a Dvorak keyboard. --Micky (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 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 retarget to Jupiter#Formation and migration. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• History of Jupiter → Jupiter#History of research and exploration  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous. Could also mean the formation of Jupiter. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would have assumed that it meant the history of the planet itself. BD2412 T 05:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would have assumed the same as BD2412. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget redirect to Formation and migration of the article. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Captain Galaxy. – Fayenatic London 09:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Captain Galaxy, agree with BD2412. --Micky (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 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 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• By Request (Niki Evans album) → The X Factor#Niki Evans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Love Me No More (Niki Evans) → The X Factor#Niki Evans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirects no longer useful as the first redirect (Niki Evans was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (British series 4) which was redirected to the generic X factor acticle. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure I understand the nom, but if the subject is mentioned at the target and the subject does not have the notability to have their own article, then that is what matters here. --Micky (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They are NOT mentioned at the target. There is no section even about this person. Both have been automatically redirected twice due to their target being redirected. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 20 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 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy Rustling → National Report#Paul Horner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Jimmy Rustling" is not mentioned at National Report (noting that the section link is broken), and is not mentioned at the article Paul Horner either. Google would seem to indicate the term isn't a real person at all, which makes this redirect confusing and should therefore be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There might be scope for a mention of this name in an article related to fake news, as it was apparently a by-line used by a prolific writer of that, but at present there is nowhere this name is mentioned on Wikipedia so there is nowhere to point this that wouldn't be confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Imagining myself as a layperson searching for this name, getting redirected, and not seeing the name on the page, I would be confused. --Micky (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:03, 20 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 speedy deleted by GB fan per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brightest Messier Galaxy → Messier 49  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Brightest" at the target, past discussions have generally had consensuses to delete redirects of the form "Superlative X". Delete unless a satisfactory counterargument can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Andromeda Galaxy. According to Messier object, M49 has an apparent magnitude of 9.4, while Andromeda's apparent magnitude is 3.4, and the only brighter Messier objects are a couple of clusters in the Milky Way, Messier 45 and Messier 7. How is Superlative X a problem? Messier's been dead for 200+ years, and apparent magnitude doesn't change on a human timescale, so it seems to me like Andromeda isn't going to stop being the brightest Messier galaxy — what's the problem? It unambiguously refers to the subject, it's not going to change, it doesn't cause confusion, etc. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "brightest Messier Galaxy" is indeed the well-known Andromeda Galaxy (M31), and in no danger of changing, but someone searching this would likely think "what is the brightest after Andromeda" (or after Triangulum (M33)), since Andromeda is more well-known and a naked eye object in contrast to many invisible Messier objects that amateur astronomers would be curious about. I wouldn't flat-out oppose a retarget there, but it wouldn't address the most likely reason for searching, and keeping miscellaneous superlatives lying around is seemingly arbitrary (per my other comments, and Wikipedia isn't a search engine). ComplexRational (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ComplexRational, I'm a little confused by your reasoning. Why would your hypothetical searcher be disappointed to find that it's Andromeda, and why would this person type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightest_Messier_Galaxy if he didn't simply want the brightest object in the catalogue? If you're sufficiently familiar with the subject to know about Messier's catalogue, why wouldn't you instead look for "brightest Messier object invisible to the naked eye" or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend, I might be wrong on this, but I get the impression that someone interested in the Messier catalogue is not unfamiliar with Andromeda, its designation, and its brightness. They might overlook that, and instead be inclined to search for "brightest Messier object invisible to the naked eye" as you say or realize the answer may have been obvious, so this existing redirect would not help with that. And also as you mention, M45 and M7 are brighter objects in the catalogue, so Messier galaxies would be a subset that does not contain the brightest Messier object.
    • If this redirect ends up kept (again not flat-out opposing that), I would agree that the only reasonable target is Andromeda. I'm !voting delete because it responds to a question that would not really aid an amateur astronomer seeking other objects—namely the brightest of all or the brightest not visible to the naked eye—unless they were unaware that Andromeda is the brightest Messier galaxy (in which case, probably they'll realize the answer was right in front of them). Also, keeping this opens a door as far as what other "Xest Y" readers may be curious about (in astronomy or elsewhere), so we need to draw the line somewhere before a large number of questionably useful redirects of this sort are created (this argument was made at past RfDs). I hope this clarifies for you. ComplexRational (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Messier object#Messier objects which is a list of the objects that can be sorted by apparent magnitude, which seems to rank Andromeda as third after Pleiades and Messier 7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, note that Andromeda is the brightest galaxy, while the others are a couple of clusters in the Milky Way. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh - Retargeting to Andromeda seems unlikely to cause any problems, but I would not be thrilled if someone then came along and created Brightest NGC galaxy, Brightest NGC nebula, etc. because the New General Catalogue has thousands of objects to keep track of (whereas Messier is just over a hundred or so). Regardless, M-49 is obviously the wrong target as a matter of simple fact. --NYKevin 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYKevin, part of my reason for voting to keep is that Messier is stable: since the creator is dead, there's no chance of an object brighter than Andromeda getting a Messier classification. It sounds as if the New General Catalogue periodically gets revised, and if that's the case, we might not be able to assume that the brightest NGC object of this-sort-or-that would remain the brightest NGC object of its type. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, i am extremely sorry for making this redirect, it's that im not a expert on types like, Luminosity, Stars, Supernovas, and etc. I am not that smart in Astronomy for some reason. I promise that i will be more smarter next time. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete noting the apology from the creator of the redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; for above reasons and it seems G7 applies since user is requesting deletion; also it is miscapitalised (I might !vote differently on Brightest Messier galaxy). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete creator seems to agree. --Micky (talk) 00:18, 20 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ainur → Template:Middle-earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Template that redirects to another template. However, there's no single best target for this: Ainur (Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, Balrogs) also play a role in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, which have their own templates. This was technically "merged" per AFD, but it only consisted of names, many of which were already at the target template. Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18#Template:Middle-earth_dwarves, there is a consensus that transferring names from one template to another does not cross the threshold of originality needed for WP:ATT to kick in. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:ASTONISH, and the consensus at the linked RfD. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no one clear target with the current template setup. Template:Arda Realms Age3 has the same problem. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xannir (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, Template:Ainur was merged to Template:Middle-earth per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_28#Template:Ainur. Its fullest old version was [1]. The redirect in enwiki might conceivably be helpful in tracing the template in other Wikipedias via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7306728 , e.g. fr: Modèle:Palette Ainur which remains fully populated. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, I haven't thought about that. Is it possible to merge this redirect's history to the target's so that we could still delete this safely? We could change the Wikidata page to use Template:Middle-earth instead of Template:Ainur, then add a note at Template talk:Middle-earth linking the version before it was merged. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible, but I would not recommend merging overlapping histories of different pages. That would make it difficult to look at single changes that were made in the past. I think the only real options are to keep the redirect or to delete it. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because it's pretty much always unwise to delete X after it's been merged into Y, even if there aren't attribution issues. You'll break old revisions of articles that used it, for example. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nyttend makes a valid point. --Micky (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There could be attribution issues, and there are definitely oldid issues, as Nyttend says. Deleting will clearly do more harm than good. --NYKevin 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nyttend and NYKevin. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 21 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 20:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Irelia → Cherami Leigh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a League of Legends character mentioned on the pages of two voice actors Cherami Leigh and Jo Hyeon-jeong, and of course not mentioned at League of Legends where it originally pointed, so we have a WP:XY problem. There's also an unrelated fictional character in Age of Fire, or a potential misspelling of Irelya (a real-world location which doesn't have its own article, just a mention at Wabag Rural LLG). Since my attempt to make it into a dab page was reverted, I suggest just deleting and letting the search engine do its job. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No good target, nowhere near enough to disambiguate, leave it to the search tool. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Narky Blert. --Micky (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 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 restore article. There was no clear consensus on what to do with this redirect. Restoring the article and nominating it for AfD seems to be the way forward here. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Music of the Gran Turismo series → Gran Turismo (series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirected for being gamecruft but no mention of subject matter in the target. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, merging any relevant commentary - I created the article, but was new to Wikipedia then. Really the article should be a proper encyclopedic article, with topics like the development of the music itself, how/why it was chosen for the given game(s), reception of said music, etc. I have no issues with a redirect to Gran Turismo (series) with any encyclopedic content from the article being merged into a Music or Soundtrack section there. --Teancum (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically implement the content on the main GT series article page? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 10:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Teancum, could you clarify? The bolded "support" makes it sound like you're fine with deletion, but your comment is more about keeping it as a redirect and merging. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edited my bolding above. Definitely redirect. If there is any good content, merge it into the series article. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect in agreement with Teancum. --Micky (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator: Current status quo of the page is a redirect - anyone saying redirect would be basically saying "keep the redirect as is" unless we're sure we're able to add (parts of) the formerly redirected page lest it get purged again from the target for being a gamecruft (the rationale why it was redirected in the first place). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We shouldn't keep the redirect as is simply in hopes of a potential future merge. If that's the way we want to go, it would be better to restore the article and move it to draft space. As long as this remains a mainspace redirect, readers may find it and follow it, only to be confused or disappointed. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. The former article had some acceptable content, so redirecting, while in good faith, eliminates this content without good reason while creating a problematic redirect in its place. No prejudice against taking the article to AfD of course, but I don't think that's necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Tavix _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I am the one who redirected the article. There is no acceptable content from the article at all. All track lists is WP:GAMECRUFT. Most other conent is also WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:22, 28 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 retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 13:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests → Blackout Tuesday  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion per this AFD, as the closer said “the title isn't an obvious search term “. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. buidhe 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, as the former article has a great deal of useful history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

great deal of useful history Which has been deleted. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because everything in this page's history is not useful. A proper encyclopedia article would rely on books, journal articles, and other scholarly secondary sources, not news reports and other primary sources. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand why this is not regarded as an obvious search term given that the target is the entertainment industry's response to the George Floyd protests. It seems obviously correct and useful to me. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC) recommendation struck in favour of new one below the relisting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, retarget per BDD below. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry. It's dangerous to redirect a broader term to a narrower one, especially so when we actually cover the broader concept. There are many more aspects to the entertainment industry's response than just Blackout Tuesday, which is linked in that section anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry, there's more consensus for you. --Xannir (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to retarget per BDD. I wasn't aware of that section until just now (I'm not sure why I missed the comments on this yesterday) and I now agree that is a better target than the existing one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. --Micky (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:54, 20 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 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yarn theory → String theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No evidence that this term exists as an alternative name. Only 6 pageviews in the past 90 days, compared to 243248 for the target. Google and Google Scholar hits are mostly about actual yarn, not ST. Created in December 2006 by a user blocked for trolling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. One of the results doesn't even relate at all to physics. If ever we get some WP:RS coverage for this term, we should recreate it as an article, not a redirect. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete adorable confusion, but not a valid search term - maybe for someone ESL? --Xannir (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, joke page. Its creator was blocked for trolling. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if its creator was blocked for trolling, how has it been around this long? --Micky (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:MADEUP.

(On a lighter note, a patent agent colleague was asked what should be done with a UK provisional patent application filed on behalf of an employee who had left within the priority year, we mustn't abandon valuable intellectual property, etc etc. My colleague pointed out that he had deliberately filed it with the title "Spinning a Yarn".) Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cute joke but not helpful. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:56, 20 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.