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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Federated States of America → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Federal States of America → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An internet search suggests that these are names for fictional entities and are not equivalent to the US. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since it is a harmless redirect that talks about America being a "Federated (federal) state, Delete if other editors says so. I just think that since the US is a federal state that it fits, I had no prior idea of it being a "alternate history country" or something. My rationale is that the article Federated state includes America, so I followed it. PyroFloe (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget Federal States of America to List of states and territories of the United States since these are the "Federal states". Otherwise probably just delete both since I doubt someone searching this is looking for the country itself, though I'm not certain what they are looking for, and I note these are very recently created. A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete per the nominator. I wouldn't object to retargetting per AV72 as other "Federal states of" and "Federated states of" titles that are not the name of a country (Federated States of Micronesia) refer to subnational entities. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't find the retargeting options convincing enough for the exact phrases and capitalisation. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spypeout → Skype  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target nor anywhere on Wikipedia. A web search also returns very few results. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This seems like a typo for SkypeOut, a former(?) name of Skype's outgoing calls feature, and if kept should follow it as an avoided double redirect. Doesn't seem plausible though. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul 012: I'm not sure, as there are multiple web search result that use this exact spelling. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Star Trek television series → Star Trek#In development  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should be deleted. Redirect, originally referring to Star Trek: Picard, is now too vague and unclear since there are no untitled Star Trek series presently, in development or otherwise. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Untitled television show is for the show, expected to be titled 'Star Trek: Section 31' , staring star Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou, and I think it is in development or was until covid-19 may have delayed it some. (Michelle Yeoh Standalone ‘Star Trek’ Series in Development at CBS All Access) -- (Jrooksjr | ^C | _T) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jrooksjr, the redirect was created in August 2018, where it redirected to a section titled "Untitled Jean-Luc Picard series". Draft:Untitled Star Trek television series was then moved to Picard (TV series); the former redirect should also be deleted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. outlived its useful original purpose. Starzoner (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2021 (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 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh Silverman → Skype  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is not mentioned at the target, but could be retargeted to Skype Technologies or Etsy (same person). I'm not sure whether the person mentioned at The Frogs (band) is the same. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (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 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 0000123456 → Skype  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 000-012-3456 → Skype  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nomination matches of what I was planning to draw. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Twestival → Twitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was redirected to the current target after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twestival, but is not currently mentioned at the target. Given the AfD, I suggest deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What was Twestival? Is it potentially still a notable topic that could be included on a twitter related page? BlackholeWA (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a festival run by twitter users to raise money for charity which ran from 2009 - 2014. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.theguardian.com/technology/pda/2009/feb/11/twitter-charity-twestival
  • There do seem to be a few bits of coverage of the festival in reliable sources, but I'm not convinced there's enough there for a standalone article. There might be enough add a section to the main twitter page? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 March 2021 (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 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Born July 2, 1929 → John A. Cade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Born June 23, 1955 → Donald C. Fry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per #Born January 22, 1955 below. Note that these were automatically created by a bot, probably in error. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too ambiguous.Less Unless (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose at all, never should have been created -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely implausible way of searching for the redirect's target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How about Born February 12, 1809? Would that redirect to Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin? These redirects are extraordinarily ambiguous. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:45, 4 March 2021 (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 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Born January 22, 1955 → Timothy R. Ferguson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

another pointless "Born foo" redirect that isn't a plausible search term or being used Nohomersryan (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too ambiguous.Less Unless (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely implausible way of searching for the redirect's target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How about Born February 12, 1809? Would that redirect to Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin? These redirects are extraordinarily ambiguous. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:46, 4 March 2021 (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 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Facterium → Vence L. Bonham Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was created on accident, and I don't think this was intentional. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily delete as G6. Ugh, what a mess; compounded by the round-robin swap, it's now nearly impossible to know what happened. Every redirect here should be G6ed and contributions histmerged into the live article. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paul 012: The page swap was necessary because the user moved their user page into mainspace instead of their sandbox. The problem came because the leftover redirects were not deleted quickly (which I probably should've considered in hindsight). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G6 created by accident when a user moved their userpage into article space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2021 (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 most, no consensus on a few simple spellings. Inasmuch as editors should consider whether voting a given way adds an undue amount of work for others, browbeating editors into changing their !votes to reduce overhead when they are not the sole dissenters seems unfair. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IMP•C•IVLIVS•CAESAR•DIVVS → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• IMP*C*IVLIVS*CAESAR*DIVVS → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• IMP. CÆSAR → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• DIVVS IVLIVS → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• IMP. CAESAR → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Ivlivs Caesar → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Ivlivs Cæsar → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Gaius Iulius Gaii Filius Gaii Nepos Caesar → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Gaius Iulius Gaii filius Gaii nepos Caesar → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• CAIVS IVLIVS CÆSAR → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• IVLIVS CÆSAR → Julius Caesar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Julius Caesar currently has so many redirects the list takes up more than one page. I don't see any use for these capitalized, elongated or archaized forms, especially those that combine ligatures with classical spelling (the possibilities for those are endless) – they're too forced and artificial. Some aren't even correct, as he was never called "Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus". There's also "Julius caesar quotes" and "I am the republic" whose purpose I don't follow. Avilich (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I BOLDly retargeted Commentaries of Julius Cæsar to the disambiguation page Caesar's Commentaries (where the non-ligatured version points) and updated its listing above. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Julius caesar quotes" does seem to be getting a couple hundred page views a year on average, and there was a list article there in the page history. Perhaps soft redirect to his wikiquote entry? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAINWRECK per below, way too many redirects of way too disparate worth. "I am the republic" seems to be a star wars meme, "Julius Caesar quotes" is a reasonable place for a wikiquote redirect, "Casear complex" is a valid redirect to a medical theory that is mentioned in the article, "Commentaries of Julius Cæsar" has allready been retargeted to its proper article and at least one of the name redirects is correct. No prejudice against renomination in small groups. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is likely to end in a train wreck given the vast diversity of redirects, especially as a page having a lot of redirects is not a reason to delete any of them. For now though keep Ivlivs Cæsar as correct, harmless and potentially useful. Soft redirect Julius caesar quotes to Q:Julius Caesar (or soft redirect the correctly capitalised version and retarget this one there) where readers will find quotes by and about Julius Caesar. I've not investigated any others yet. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well, I removed a bit of the 'diversity'. Having lots of useless redirects with zero views encumbering the list where they're enumerated is absolutely a reason to delete them. There's also nothing correct about a combination of classical spelling with ligatures like Ivlivs Cæsar, it's too artificial and no more likely than the hundreds of other such possible combinations. Avilich (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. None of these (at least whatever remains as of this edit) look useful to me—all of them are eclectic mixes of orthography, nomenclature, ligatures, capitalization, and none of them are likely search terms. Anyone who can't find Caesar without one of these redirects has bigger problems. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ALL VE ASSVME THAT ALL ENGLISH VIKIPEDIA READERS USE REGVLAR LATIN SCRIPT EVEN IF VE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT Ivlivs Caesar MEANS Julius Caesar PLVS SOME OF THESE HAVE ODD CHARACTER CHOICES SVCH AS VSING THE BVLLET • TO REPRESENT THE INTERPVNCT · –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 9,999 in 10,000 readers just type "Julius CæsarCaesar" instead. WP:Redirects are expensive. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ivlivs Caesar and Ivlivs Cæsar per Thryduulf, but this kinda seems like a train crash is impending, although the incorrect ones should definitely be deleted. Maybe renominate them in smaller and more similar groups, as suggested by Thryduulf and our 86 friend above? Delete all per nom. The trainwreck is averted. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC), modified 17:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment may have single-handedly prompted an admin to unnecessarily prolong for another week what shouldn't have been controversial. The issue that (supposedly) made this a trainwreck has already been removed, and there's a common theme to all the redirects which still stand. Please pay attention before making a comment which might mislead an admin into dismissing this entire discussion. You also haven't addressed any of the rebuttals to Thrydulf's position. There's nothing correct about an arbitrary mixture of minuscule letters, classical spelling, and ligatures. Avilich (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I should have paid more attention to it. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Avilich (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1774) → Burmese–Siamese wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774) → Burmese–Siamese wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The period 1767–1774 saw Siamese factions fighting to gain footing in the power vacuum that followed the Fall of Ayutthaya at the end of the Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767). Since the Burmese forces had retreated to deal with the Sino-Burmese War, they were mostly absent from the scene, and these faction struggles cannot be characterised as a "Burmese–Siamese war". The redirect was created by VFF0347, and recently converted to an article by User:Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit before being reverted back to a redirect. Since the article was mostly a fork of the listing in the main article, and the redirect had previously stood for a year, I think RfD is the proper venue. Suggesting deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. I created Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774) without any content and then redirected that article to Burmese-Siamese wars because I had written a short summary of that war when I enhanced the listing of the various wars in the "Burmese-Siamese wars" article. I saw that Paul_012 recently removed my short summary from the list of Burmese–Siamese wars. I'm not a scholar on the subject so I defer to Paul_012's opinion on the removal of the war from the list. And now that my summary has been removed from the list of Burmese-Siamese wars, a redirect is inappropriate. What's needed I think is a full and complete article on the Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774). Paul_012, you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Would you consider taking on the task? Thanks, VFF0347 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VFF0347, The information is currently covered separately at Thonburi Kingdom#Reunification and expansion and Taksin#Five Separate States. There might be potential for consolidating the information and expanding into a separate article, but I don't think that's currently necessary. I don't think that retargeting the current redirect would be appropriate, since as I mentioned the main issue with the redirect is the factional fighting is not and should not be described as a "Burmese–Siamese war". --Paul_012 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, Thank you, sir. Should Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1774) be deleted? Sounds to me like it's redundant. I support whatever you think is appropriate. Regards, VFF0347 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for understanding. Whether or not to delete should be determined here by this discussion, which will remain open for further input for at least a week or so. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was soft redirect to Wikt:suffusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suffusion → Hematoma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Current target does not mention the word "suffusion", and it could presumably relate to many other things. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article was edited to add "blood suffusion" as a synonym. Still not sure if it's the primary use of suffusion enough to merit the redirect, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the missing term to the article. If there are other notable meanings with corresponding articles, we may create a disambiguation page. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "suffusion" alone a reasonable alternate name for this, vs. a WP:PTM? How about for Conjunctival suffusion? --BDD (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to its entry on Wiktionary? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect per 86.23.109.101, or delete. Not a synonym. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (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 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Magellan (film) → Lee Smith (film editor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Came across this during NPP this morning, where another editor had put a CSD tag on it. Since it doesn't really qualify for CSD, I brought it here. This editor has no credits for Magellan in his article. The other editor, Sprachraum, wrote the following in their CSD: "For three years, this has been a nonsensical relink to the page of a film editor who had nothing to do with any film named "Magellan". As can be seen in the history, the root cause is that Brinlong created an article draft for the film Magellan (2017) in the main article space instead on his user subpage – then copied the Infobox film from Interstellar, left part of those details in the box, including Interstellar editor Lee Smith, and abandoned the "article" in a state not even close to a legitimate stub. Along came Bovineboy2008, placed a relink to Lee (not-the-editor-of Magellan). Which also caused a 2007 film of the same name to link to Lee Smith in the article L'est Films Group! Since there are even more films named Magellan, this page should be deleted completely, because any future article creations should be titled Magellan (2007 film), Magellan (2017 film), etc. I have written to both users here, and while Brinlong is inactive since February 3, Bovineboy2008 has agreed to the deletion." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or restore and draftify. A messy situation indeed. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as outlined above. Thanks onel5969, for faithfully keeping my comments about the delete request upon moving it here, although I feel you could have spared yourself all the work (like putting a notice on the talk page of LEE SMITH!) since this should not really be about the relink that is so obviously false. It is at best a discussion about whether the underlying abandoned article attempt warrants any salvaging. To me it clearly does not: Anyone that wants to create an article about the 2017 film Magellan would be well advised to start from scratch instead of sifting through the meager bits and pieces in the article history to see what belongs to Magellan and what belongs to Interstellar. And as outlined above, the name of that future article should be Magellan (2017 film). There is nothing worth saving, not even the name of the page, nor does the creator Brinlong show the necessary activity to reembark on a proper draft – he/she has made 11 edits in the last three years. Had the relink not hidden this mess from sight, the page would have been deleted three years ago. P.S.: I originally posted it as a delete request on WP:PROD following the advice of EurekaLott, who wrote here: "I would probably go with WP:PROD, because it would require the least effort, and because RFD participants sometimes object to using that process to delete pages that used to be articles." --Sprachraum (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for following up on this, Sprachraum. For the record, I suggested reverting the page back to an article before nominating it for proposed deletion. Redirects aren't eligible under WP:PROD. - Eureka Lott 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes EurekaLott, you did, and I'm sorry I skipped that part of your advice. It felt a bit silly to do that, since I'm asking people to look at the history of the article – whereupon they would immediately see that I had just deleted a relink! So I thought the people over at WP:PROD would easily be able to realize that it isn't really about the relink, but apparently not.

I really suggest a topic for your next admin-conference: There is too much bureaucracy set up around these processes, on to many pages, too confusing for newcomers, and stealing too much time even from experienced users. I really believe that the en-WP would benefit from learning what works on other language WPs, who handle this differently. Redirects are not cheap, if they actually involve people discussing that one should keep the double "of of" in an obscure template name of 12 words length! –as is happening below. The life time of all the people on these pages is not cheap. --Sprachraum (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. No use as an incorrect redirect and no real use as a draft since it's made of bits and pieces of other articles not related to this film. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (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 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 20721 → Slashdot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Might also refer to ZIP codes like at Lake Arbor, Maryland. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has no mention of this number that is any different to any other number as a zip code, reference no, etc. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2021 (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 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Film Editor (Dick Allen) → Dick Allen (film editor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Request Deletion of the redirect page: Created back in 2013, by a newby who didn't know how to set internal links properly, this page should be deleted not only because as a title it goes against all the naming rules, but also because if you enter "Film editor" in the Wikipedia search box, this relink appears in the popdown preview as the second result. No other film editor in the entire Wikipedia is given such "prominence". And it is highly unlikely that there are any external links to it. Sprachraum (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's more of a fault in the search engine rather than anything else that this redirect is given such a prominence, but in the meantime it's cluttering the search bar to a high degree nonetheless so should be deleted. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't follow our article naming norm, which is that names go first, and occupation goes second, in parentheses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2021 (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 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 223-episode series → List of Gumby episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The Gumby franchise is not a 223 episode series, Neither the TV shows The Gumby Show nor Gumby Adventures. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this. This redirect is also pretty ambiguous, and multiple series have 223 or more episodes. It wouldn't make sense to direct readers to any one of those series. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible search term. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an old old R from move; the article, which originally looked like this, stood less than an hour at this title. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it’s a highly unlikely term that’s inaccurate on top of thst.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search term that is both implausible and inaccurate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:45, 4 March 2021 (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.