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 delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hackney North Star → Tottenham Mandem

 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There’s nothing called Hackney North Star it’s just called North Star it was accidentally put down as Hackney North Star. BurudaKidd (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 18 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mozambican -politician-stub → Template:Mozambique-politician-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created here, moved to {{Mozambican-politician-stub}} six minutes later, then merged into the current target. Seems to be an unlikely/WP:UNNATURAL typo. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible typo. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Her Pegship (?) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marked as a "shortcut", but is the same length as the target. Zuata (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Completley valid {{R from modification}}. This redirect has over 21,000 incoming links and receives over 200 page views a month. Since this is fully protected it also has the nice side effect of preventing people using this title as a sandbox, look at the page history. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasoning. Misplaced RCATs aren't a valid reason for a redirect to be deleted. Also, WP:Redirects are cheap. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 21,000 (!!!) incoming links that would be broken for no particularly good reason. eviolite (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deputy editor → Editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Deputy Editor → Editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not specifically explained at the target. Perhaps there is a better option, as with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Associate editor? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Could apply to the deputy/assistant of any type of editor. I think it would be better to defer to search results rather than targeting Editor (disambiguation), though that would probably be an improvement over the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2022 (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. In addition to not being mentioned at the target, participants supported deleting this redirect to allow the search results to guide the readers to their desired subject, which may include the screenwriter or what appears to be an audio engineer (mentioned at Supralingua and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)). There was insufficient support to conclude that one of these individuals was the primary target to justify retargeting the nominated redirect elsewhere. ✗plicit 23:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Sellers → Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. There are passing mentions of a seemingly unrelated screenwiter in various articles. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, retarget or create article - The case of German and Williams brought him in. His name can also be retargeted to a suitable page, or an article can be created for the screen writer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jax 0677: What do you mean by The case of German and Williams brought him in? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - This. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? Do you think that is relevant enough to the case to have in the article? Do you disagree with General Ization's removal of the "unrelated murder arrest" section? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - No reason to remove it, and I am willing for the quorum to discuss that here. Additionally, Sellers wrote Blue Skies Again, which would be a suitable redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to reveal search results. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reason I removed the mention of Sellers' confession to an unrelated murder from the target article. Even if it was relevant to mention that he was questioned about the Williams/German murders, WP:BLP1E. The tipster may have thought it was appropriate to mention Sellers to the investigators of the Williams/German murders, but there is no evidence that he was ever seriously considered a suspect in those murders, and we do not generally list everyone who has been questioned in a murder investigation, much less consider them notable enough for an article (or even a redirect). General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have started this section to discuss whether or not "Kevin Sellers" should redirect to Blue Skies Again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, but this does not need its own subsection of the debate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search (there are 8 mentions). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pink Friday 2 → 2020 in hip hop music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no mention at target -- dylx 17:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the rumored name for another album/follow-up to Pink Friday since 2020. Delete. I'm also okay with adding a mention of it to Pink Friday and redirecting to the appropriate section, but prefer deleting per WP:CRYSTAL. eviolite (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 0rz → orz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible Mixed script redirect, the first charecter here is the number zero rather than the letter o (I suppose 0 vs O isn't really mixed script, but the same arguments apply and it's just as implausible as a search term).192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Similar redirects have previously been kept at RfD as "plausible", though I can't link any specific cases right now. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recent example I can think of is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_27#H2S04, where there was some ambivalence but everyone leaned keep. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Emoticon#Orz which is probably the only plausible use of "orz" that could have the o replaced with a 0. eviolite (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty common alternative spelling online I would say C933103 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a very plausible typo since it is very common to substitute 0 for o and vice versa. Also the [o] key is next to the [0] key on QWERTY English language keyboards. And Arabic numerals appear on English language keyboards, so it isn't like it is a script that doesn't appear on Englsh language keyboards -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible to mistake or mistype "0" instead of a capital "O", so should target Orz, its current target, which is a dab page for any use of orz. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2022 (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 Withdrawn by nominator 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Integrity → Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

CNR from article space, not encylopedic — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn bad nomination! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:48, 18 February 2022 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Women in Red → Women in Red  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created CNR from article space. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn bad nomination! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 18 February 2022 (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 Otto Theodor Benfey#Earlham College. The retarget proposals addresses concerns raised by deletion and has late momentum. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chemical Bond Approach → Chemical bond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion, because the former refers to a now discontinued textbook, meaning it should not be a redirect to the latter. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not particularly opposed to this deletion. I waited rather long time for someone to make redirects from some missing topics lists I had noticed and then decided to make them myself and there are bound to be mistakes. In fact, I would welcome help with my own lists of missing topics; some are certain to be just worthy of a redirect - Skysmith (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Otto_Theodor_Benfey#Earlham_College where it is mentioned with references. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Otto Theodor Benfey#Earlham College for now. It appears that the Chemical Bond Approach also refers to a course/teaching method, and there are a few papers on it, so it's possible that Chemistry education could be expanded with a mention to it (which would IMO be a better target.) eviolite (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the general concept would be a good redirect target for Chemical bond approach, which doesn't currently exist, but the proper noun should target the book. The book is actually The Chemical Bond Approach (which also doesn't exist as a redirect currently), but I still think the capitalized form should target the book, a case of WP:DIFFCAPS, or technically, as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as a shortened version of the name for the book, taking priority over an incorrectly capitalized form of the concept in general, which I don't believe is really a proper noun. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah, since all of the pedagogical stuff stems from tbe book, if the book were described at a target like Chemical education, more so than the brief mention at the proposed target, then yes that would then be a better target. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2022 (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, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aleph → Template:Rhr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Rather misleading since the target is not necessarily a transcription of aleph in a Semitic script, and especially since it makes it harder to describe aleph numbers in mathematics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused template redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per MOS:APOSTROPHE, which says Letters resembling apostrophes, such as ʻokina, saltillo, Hebrew ayin and Arabic hamza, should be represented by those templates or by their Unicode values. - this should also extend to {{aleph}}. The standard Latin script transliteration of aleph indeed appears to be ʾ (not sure what "not necessarily a transcription" means - also see Modifier letter right half ring), and I highly disagree that it "makes it harder to describe aleph numbers", as in that context it would be represented as <math>\aleph</math> or {{math|ℵ}}. The fact that it is not used at all is interesting though - I wonder if the plain Unicode character or its codepoint is used instead - so my !vote is weak. {{Rhr}} itself does not have mainspace uses either. eviolite (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwamikagami, what's your take here? – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak 'delete'. I don't think it much matters either way. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bandurist-stub → Template:Ukraine-musician-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not restricted to Ukrainian people; we have articles like William Vetzal and Victor Mishalow. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, OR Remove redirect and upmerge to Category:String musician stubs. Currently used on exactly one article. Her Pegship (?) 18:14, 19 February 2022 (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. Under criteria G7. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ancillariidaee-stub → Template:Gastropod-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling of Ancillariidae (and no such redirect for the main article); {{Ancillariidae-stub}} already exists. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:K-stub → Template:Kurdistan-stub  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not sure why "K" should refer specifically to Kurdistan. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused, ambiguous and potentially confusing template redirect. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Her Pegship (?) 18:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd expect this to be about Potassium (K) or Korea (K-Pop, K-Drama, K-Cinema, K-Rock, etc) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2022 (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. CSD G14. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unorganized territory (disambiguation) → Unorganized area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete Thesmp (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thesmp can you give a reason for proposed deletion? I'm not sure whether the issue is the potentially unrequired addition of (disambiguation) or something else. Bonoahx (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bonoahx, first of all a page with '... (disambiguation)' in its title should not be redirected to an article. Secondly I opened an merger proposal you may want to leave a comment there too. Unincorporated area covers both the United States and Canada and all other countries, while Unorganized area covers only Canada. --Thesmp (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I think Delete per nom as it's not a disambiguation page and could potentially WP:ASTONISH. I will reserve judgment on the merger though as I'm not familiar with the subject. Bonoahx (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1234qwer1234qwer4 did you mean to add something else here? – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:1234qwer1234qwer4, why do you want to keep it? --Thesmp (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under Criterion WP:G14 as A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:G14. The target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there used to be a disambiguation page [1] at Unorganized territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2022 (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. The redirect, which was an artifact of a round-robin move, has been fixed to lead to the new title Talk:Tower block (consistent with High-rise building → Tower block.) (non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:High-rise building → Talk:High-rise building  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Circular redirect C933103 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect to Talk:Tower block. Keith D (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close this was from a recent bold rename from High-rise building to Tower block. If that requires discussion, it should be opened separately. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (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 22:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It Doesn't Often Snow At Christmas → It Doesn't Often Snow at Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Was originally created with incorrect capitalization. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason given for deletion. Being a different capitalisation is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag as {{R from other capitalisation}}, which is what that tag is for. Narky Blert (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2022 (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. Jay (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Australian Domestic Market → Automotive industry in Australia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I see three main issues with this redirect. Firstly, the term (in reference to cars) appears to be totally made up, trying to be some equivalent to Japanese domestic market. I can find no useage in reliable sources but this [2] seems to suggest it is not really a term that is used. Secondly, even if the term is used by reliable sources, it would be about the automobiles specifically made in and for the local market, whereas the target is about automobile manufacturing in Australia both for domestic sale and export. Finally, the term is clearly quite ambigous, and could refer to just about anything. I do note that it is linked to in two articles, Chrysler Hemi-6 Engine and Volvo Redblock Engine, both piped, and in my opinion both should be removed (and I will shortly do so). A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two incoming links have been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Highly ambiguous, not an established phrase for anything in particular as JDM is. Google searches show mostly aviation-related topics but also livestock and wine; JSTOR shows results about cinema, tobacco, energy, general economics/trading, and so on. If the redirect stays, it should be redirected to Aviation in Australia, but as I said it's nowhere near an established term that can only refer to that. eviolite (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2022 (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 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MicroScript (programming language) → TRON project#MicroScript  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Was merged into target article by AfD here and was removed from the target article as unreferenced/nonnotable here. Figured I'd ask the community before messing with this. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging AfD participants @TYelliot, Gene93k, Rilak, Beeblebrox, Herostratus, and DGG: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say I really recall this, but if we aren't hosting any content at all on this extremely minor programming language delete seems like the obvious call. One could argue it was the more reasonable outcome of the original AFD, as the comments there besides the nom are all WP:INHERIT arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage to sustain any mention of it in the target article. eviolite (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2022 (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 Retarget. Speedy Retarget by @Orangemike: who didn't close discussion here. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Tonga Time → Tonga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It would make more sense for this page to redirect to the Time in Tonga article, than to the main Tonga article. Hextor26 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article Time in Tonga didn't exist at the time the redirect was created. So I agree. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and WP:BOLDly redirect. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hextor26: uncontroversial (or seemingly uncontroversial) retargets like this don't require discussion. Of course it's fine if you aren't sure what a redirect should point to, or someone has reverted your retarget, but this one seems pretty obvious and you could have just changed the target. Retarget per nom. A7V2 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget. Narky Blert (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2022 (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.