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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NO → Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think that redirecting the term "NO" (in Wikipedia) to the WikiProject does not seem helpful. I propose retargeting to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is the more plausible target, because this lists specific things that Wikipedia is not. For example, I would assume that "no battlegrounds" in Wikipedia possibly means "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Also, I have redirected "Wikipedia:No" to the proposed target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. This started out as an Initialism for WP:Notability (organizations), then was retargeted to WP:WikiProject New Orleans, and is now a redirect to WP:WikiProject Norway, all of which are reasonable targets. About half the incoming links are from AFD discussions where people have got it confused with WP:NOT, and there's a load of other things this could be a reasonable shortcut to. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that disambiguation sounds like a better choice. How about disambiguating "Wikipedia:No", and then retarget "Wikipedia:NO" to that page? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: per IP's suggestion. There are many pages where NO could be used. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per above. Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts is also something someone searching for Wikipedia:No might be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 14 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DIE → Wikipedia:No personal attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a longstanding redirect that was retargeted to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians a while back, before being reverted. I think the discussion is worth having. Sure, if someone says, "Die!" to you, I can see this as an avoided double redirect for Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats, but that doesn't sem like a very common form of death threat. One of only two mentions of death threats on the target page links to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which may be a more appropriate target. I'm not so sure about Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians—it doesn't seem like a likely search term for that. I'd like to see consensus on what to do with this, whether it's keep, delete, or retarget. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the past targets are really that great confusing shortcut. Possibly also disambiguate, but iffy. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the proposed targets are particularly good in my opinion. I oppose retargeting to WP:Deceased Wikipedians because it seems rather disrespectful, and I think getting from "Die" to "No personal attacks" is more confusing than helpful. Despite being around since 2006 this currently has 17 incoming links, about 6 of which are resulting from this RfD discussion, so it doesn't seem to have been used in the first place. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe protect from recreation. This is an odd case, in that the normal markup, with the colon indicating the namespace, reads here like a message telling someone to die. The case for targeting to NPA is poor, because there is no need to make a redirect out of every possible personal attack. And "die" is an illogical verb tense to target to deceased Wikipedians. It ends up just being an odd and uncomfortable one-off of markup that really doesn't have any particular usefulness, no matter where it gets targeted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tryptofish, I don't see proof or indication that the redirect was repeatedly recreated. The redirect has been around since 2006, and it was not deleted multiple times. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's perfectly fine with me, and I don't feel strongly either way. My thinking is that we don't have experience with what happens after it is deleted, and it may be tempting to users unaware of a previous deletion discussion to (re)create it. But we could certainly cross that bridge if/when we come to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 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 soft redirect to Wikt:locker room talk. There seems to be an emerging consensus for this. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Locker room talk → Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target article is an example of the phenomenon - a prominent such - but does very little to explain the overall concept. This is a WP:RWPOSS that really should be its own article, but just replacing that with "such an occurance" ain't helping the reader. The incoming links are very few, so I say delete and leave open for someone create the proper article instead. Gaioa (T C L) 18:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Locker room talk" was a famous phrase uttered in relation to the event, CTRL+F shows that the phrase appears on the page 19 times (though some of them are in reference titles), and it seems to be a reasonable search term. Someone can create a proper article for it, but that's no reason to delete the redirect in the interim. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as Gaioa says, this incident in this article is just one example of "locker room talk", not an explanation of the concept in general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary (Wikt:locker room talk), which has a definition of the phrase? I suppose it depends if other editors think there's the potential to expand this into an article or if it would just end up being a dictionary definition, 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a wikt entry of the term? That's awesome and would be a great solution, I give nom support to this. Gaioa (T C L) 20:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like a good solution to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• soft redirect per the above. This didn't need relisting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect. Agreed and agreed. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 12:55, 13 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 19:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohamed Kunp → Garissa University College attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Does not seem to be mentioned in target page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – All top Google hits for the name are sites that have scraped from Wikipedia. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this redirect as a typo of Mohamed Kuno, which redirects to "Garissa University College attack". 053pvr (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless the name typo is either well used or well documented in reliable sources I would generally avoid making typo redirects from peoples names to events like terrorist attacks. There are significant WP:BLP considerations when making these types of redirects due to the possibility of collateral damage - it is possible that some unrelated person with a similar name now has internet search engines thinking they were involved in the event. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:04, 14 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 G7 -FASTILY 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 99.999999999999999999999... → 100  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Really? Seems an implausible search term. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 24#0,9, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 27#0.999, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 22#0.9999999999999999999999999999999 and various similar discussions linked from them. They are slightly different though, as they target the article 0.999... (see also the very many redirects that link there). That article though might not be an inappropriate target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 1 is the quintessential case for the subject of repeating decimal limits, so having redirects from one or more variations of 0.9 makes sense. This redirect to 100 is no more valid than a redirect from 26.999… to 27; both are more distracting than they are useful. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 19:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a better target would be 0.999.... Elli (talk | contribs) 19:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are an infinite number of such possible redirects, and 1/oo = not notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I'm the creator of this redirect and it seems that this specific number, with its 23 digits, does not warrant a redirect. 053pvr (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Accordingly tagged for speedy deletion. Otherwise broadly agree with the preceding comments arguing for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 14 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 retarget to Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Ad hominem → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments to the person  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Wikipedia:ADHOMINEM → Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Wikipedia:ADHOM → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments to the person  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is a hatnote at the mainspace article Ad hominem that says '"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.' In that context, the 3 nominated redirects ought to target the same page, and I think that ought to be Wikipedia:No personal attacks, although I can see why Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments to the person would also be appropriate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ad hominems are bad everywhere, not just in deletion discussions. Ad hominems also consist of all sorts of attacks on the person making an argument, not just calling them a vandal. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? where ad hominems in the wiki's context are discussed--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 17 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 retarget to Uncleftish Beholding. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Waterstuff → Hydrogen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Sourstuff → Oxygen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

This is a name for Hydrogen that was created by Poul Anderson to demonstrate what element names would look like if English didn't use loanwords from other languages. In my opinion someone searching for this term is more likely to be looking for Uncleftish Beholding (the book that introduced the word), Linguistic purism in English or Poul Anderson than the article on hydrogen. I propose retargeting to Uncleftish Beholding as it's the only article I could find that mentions the word. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Sourstuff here for the same reason. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Uncleftish Beholding as the only article in which these terms are mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Uncleftish Beholding which is the only target that will educate people about what these words mean. If they are interested in learning about the elements they can follow the link to the common names. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible search terms. 053pvr (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  20 hits in the 3½ months of last year that they existed suggests they are not implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Uncleftish Beholding where the terms are discussed --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Uncleftish Beholding per nom and above. These terms are mentioned at the proposed target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:27, 14 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 retarget to War of secession. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Secession War → American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Although this name is used to refer to the American civil war I think it's pretty ambiguous, and a google search shows it is also used to refer to the war of 1812 and numerous fictional events. I propose retargeting to the dab page at War of secession. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to dab page per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to War of secession per nom. Definitely the most appropriate target for this potentially ambiguous term. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to War of secession per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, clearly a better target. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:54, 18 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 disambiguate. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keyway → Keyhole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

In my opinion the primary topic of keyway is Key (engineering), as the name of the slot that a key fits in. I'm listing this here because the keyhole article was at this title for ~7 years before being moved. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. They are both plausible targets. More people use keys in everyday life than work with rotating shafts, so I'm not sure which more readers would be trying to find. Without some more evidence of a PT, we should just make it a dab (I created one at the redirect). MB 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per MB. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 19 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 19:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Erdviper → Micrelaps muelleri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

German term for several species of snakes (see e.g.) that don't occur in Germany Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I should say delete. As the snakes have no German (or Swiss or Austrian) habitat, I see no reason why an Erdviper would ever be called that in English. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 13 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.