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. It's a neat relic from its days as a testinfobox, but consensus is that it's no longer useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Powderfinger discography/TestInfobox → Template:Infobox artist discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is unused, and unlikely ever to be used. It may have originally been a test; it was never a plausible redirect. --John Cline (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - neat find though! {{Infobox artist discography}} started life as this "testinfobox" in a featured list nomination, now it's transcluded on nearly 5,000 pages. It only lived at this title for barely two hours more than 10 years ago, so it's unlikely to be useful as a {{R from move}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Main Article: Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan → Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Erroneous prefix. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This isn't worth keeping. Noting as well that the appropriate "Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan" does exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Interestingly, "Casualties from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan" doesn't (yet) exist, not that this changes things here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor formatting and implausible mispelling due to the " --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete created by a mistake? Raymond3023 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 refine to the section Fritzl case#Josef Fritzl. There's a slight majority of editors here favoring redirection to the section, but there's also a couple other editors at the talk page wishing it refined to the section as well. Keeping all that in mind, I feel there's consensus for change. What is clear, however, is that protection is no longer necessary, so that will be removed. (Should that change for whatever reason, please check out WP:RFPP or make the change yourself if you're an uninvolved admin. You do not need to seek my permission.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Josef Fritzl → Fritzl case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should redirect to the subsection Fritzl case#Josef Fritzl. Redirect is full-protected, so I cannot make this change myself.  ONR  (talk)  20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Most people searching for this name will do so because of the case. No one is interested in him outside those crimes. So the redirect to the main article makes more sense than a redirect to the section of the main article. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I came here from a request at RFPP to remove protection, which I declined because the protecting admin had not been contacted and because this discussion is open. NawlinWiki is not very active, but their entry in the protection log reads "no reason to edit or move this redirect without discussion" (emphasis added), thus I presume that they're okay with whatever the result is here. Also note that the creator of the redirect was notified, but he died a year ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove all protection. When this redirect was vandalised by an IP when the topic was in the news more than nine years ago, some form of protection made sense. But definitely not full protection and definitely not for such an extended period. – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the subsection redirect makes sense. I also don't see a particular reason to keep the protected status. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, to make it formal. I don't think it really matters whether this redirect points to the bio section or to the top, it's the same article either way. As for protection, I see no need to keep the redirect at full protection, I only declined as a procedural matter as I explained above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 18:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Taurus (catamaran) → Catamaran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No coverage of the subject is at the target page. Redirect was created "to prevent redlink from disambig page", in the process both causing confusion (see "no coverage of the subject at the target page") and against WP:REDYES - this is a very-likely-notable subject, and a "phantom redirect" discourages creation of an actual article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nobody following the redirect is going to be any the wiser as the string "taurus" does not even appear in the target of the redirect. I even wondered if this was a hoax, as there is nothing to prove that it isn't. Googling shows that there is a manufacturer of modern catamarans called "Taurus", but that is not what is being claimed here, and not a whole lot else, but I did eventually find proof that it is not a hoax. There a reference to an individual catamaran (not a type) called "Taurus" here, where it gets one paragraph and a few diagrams, which confirms the approximate time period claimed. Ironically, having this redirect only clogs up Google with unhelpful search results meaning that anybody who ever does want to know about this boat will have a harder job finding it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in article, so it shouldn't even get a dab mention at Taurus. Appears to be a company, but there's verbiage saying it's a type from 1790? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 18:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What language do they speak in Persia? → Iran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Sentence redirect AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems very unlikely to ever be searched as the country is no longer even called Persia and wouldn't be very helpful as it doesn't even redirect where you would expect, i.e. Languages of Iran. Instead it is unhelpfully targeted at a non-existent section of Iran. This is not helping anybody. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems clumsy at best and really isn't worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though there is Persian language, unless Wikipedia is supposed to be answering Ask Jeeves / Siri / Alexa like questions going forward. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there are no other articles or redirects starting with "What language do they speak in" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget There is no reason to delete this. It is harmless, not new, (see WP:RFD:HARMFUL and is useful - in the seven years it has been there it will have provided a useful link about 3000 times. Remember that because the name of the country has changed, and the name of the language has changed twice, this is a particularly tricky piece of information to surface. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Retarget to Languages of Iran, the page where readers will find several answers to the question of what language is spoken in Persia (a.k.a. Iran). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or move to Language of Persia and retarget as above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone wants to ask "what language do they speak in Persia", they can go to the WP:HELPDESK; redirects, as objects in articlespace, should WP:NOT be in question and answer format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and it is outdated. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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