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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 01:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms/telecommunications encryption terms → List of telecommunications encryption terms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The nominated redirect is an WP:XNR, but its parent page, Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms, is not. Also, the redirect is a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 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 speedy deleted, by Athaenara. They used R3, but I presume they meant G7 as this wasn't recently created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was most likely created in error, but it's not immediately apparent from the redirect's edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This isn't useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: What error would you be referring to, that's not immediately apparent? As the page creator, I would like to think that I had some legitimate reason for doing what I did, so I'd love it if you'd enlighten me.... but at the end of the day, I have to agree with the nominator and CoffeeWithMarkets. We don't need namespace redirects for every article in the mainspace. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 06:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jsharpminor: This redirect wasn't created as a result of a page move ... which is why it is not immediately apparent if this was created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete then, per CoffeeWithMarkets, Steel1943, and my own comment above. This isn't useful. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 26 February 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. as there doesn't seem to be an appropriate Wikipedia-space disambiguation page for this title. Deryck C. 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Footnotes (disambiguation) → Help:Footnotes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target is not a disambiguation page. No current opinion though on whether or not this title should be on a disambiguation page ... Considering that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) targets Wikipedia:Citing sources. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as housekeeping. I tried to come up with a plausible dab page, but the major candidates are covered by hatnotes at the target article. The matching title, Wikipedia:Footnotes, also redirects to Help:Footnotes, so there is nothing lost to searches by deleting this page. The only dab page this redirect might target is Wikipedia:FOOT, but that's a very weak correlation at best. Deleting it is better. — Gorthian (talk) 23:05, 24 February 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 Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alfred F. Conrad → Star Roses and Plants/Conard-Pyle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

typo. Should have been Alfred F Conard Avram (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible type due to just having an unnecessary period. This reminds me a bit of the Harry S Truman situation on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, striking per below. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note-- the typo I'm referring to isn't Alfred F. vs Alfred F -- it's Conard vs Conrad. And it's completely my mistake (and I probably should have speedied but I don't actually know how to and I do know how to RfD…) Avram (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as (obviously) plausible typo. Avram, you won't be the first nor the last to type "Conrad" instead of "Conard", so why not get the hapless searcher to the right article? — Gorthian (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So I was looking into this more-- and apparently everyone is confused by these spellings. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a legitimate Alfred F. Conrad who we could accidentally be redirecting away from -- but I found only "Alfred F. Conrad" at the University of Michigan (https://www.lib.umich.edu/faculty-history/faculty/alfred-f-conrad). But… that's a misspelling of Alfred F. Conard (https://www.law.umich.edu/historyandtraditions/faculty/Faculty_Lists/Alpha_Faculty/Pages/AlfredFConard.aspx; http://iagenweb.org/boards/poweshiek/obituaries/index.cgi?read=491874), the grand-nephew of the Alfred F. Conard that the redirect points to. So yes, apparently this is a useful redirect in the end! Avram (talk) 04:52, 25 February 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 keep as {{r from surname}}. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingson → Richard Kingson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A single word, Kingson. Why would that be assumed to be Richard Kingson - as evidenced by someone who recently tried to create an article about a band. Kellymoat (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a valid redirect from surname. More notable than most others in fact given the ambiguity between his name and his own brother's surname, which is mentioned in the lead. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with a redirect of Richard Kingston, because the "t" version is mentioned in the article. But not a simple one word redirect. It seems far reaching to me.Kellymoat (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid {{R from surname}} that is not shared with anyone else with an article. I've added hatnotes to Richard Kingston and Kingston (disambiguation) at the target and added the target as a see also at the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid {{R from surname}} per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:13, 24 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rodinian → Mesoproterozoic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Rodinian to the Mesoproterozoic article. I think the redirect of Rodinian to Mesoproterozoic should be kept until text can be added to Rodinian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it is in the article with a cited mention --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 24 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eukaryian → Rhyacian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Eukaryian to the Rhyacian article. I think the redirect of Eukaryian to Rhyacian should be kept until text can be added to the Eukaryian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 25 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jatulian → Rhyacian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Jatulian to the Rhyacian article. I think the redirect of Jatulian to Rhyacian should be kept until text can be added to Jatulian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it has a cited mention in the article --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 25 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxygenian → Siderian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Oxygenian to the Siderian article. I think the redirect of Oxygenian to Siderian should be kept until text can be added to Oxygenian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it has a cited mention in the article --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 25 February 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 speedy delete by G7. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PPG → User:Wiki-Coffee/Protecting Pages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect was created as a shortcut to a proposed new guideline: User:Wiki-Coffee/Protecting_Pages. The Village Pump discussion[1] was strongly opposed to the proposed guideline. The target page has been userfied, leaving this as a Cross namespace redirect from WP: to userspace.

One, two, and three letter shortcuts are a very limited and valuable community resource. They should not be consumed by failed guideline proposals.

This redirect can trivially be recreated for the target page, if/when that page is actually promoted to a guideline. Alsee (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heya: I think Wikipedia editors time could be better spent than debating the use of a shortcut to a Wikipedia Essay page so I will self-CSD to avoid frivolous use of other editors time. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 06:35, 23 February 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 all. Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Death Wish (2014 film) → Death Wish (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Death Wish (2015 film) → Death Wish (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete as a faulty crystal ball. A remake never came to fruition in either of these years, so there's not a 2014/5 film of this name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a faulty crystal ball. Alsee (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - We don't have reason to keep these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:19, 24 February 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 all. Deryck C. 01:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Event 15 → Jennifer Morrison  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Event 15 (film) → Jennifer Morrison  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Alpha Alert → Jennifer Morrison  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an WP:XY. There's nowhere the film is discussed in any detail, so the best way for our readers to get information about the film is via the search engine. They'd be able to see who starred in the film and if they wanted, can select a specific actor to get more information about them, rather than be funneled into an arbitrary cast member. It's also mentioned at Stephen Rider and Christine Alderson. (Note: All redirects refer to the same film.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We shouldn't redirect to a random actor's page, especially when it has zero useful content. Alsee (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the purpose of a redirect is to lead the reader to encyclopedic content on that subject. There is no such content at the redirect destination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it might be okay to redirect to Matthew Thompson but it is not clear which director article it should go to. But it shouldn't go to one of the actors unless they were involved in the production side (producer, writer, director, creator). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 24 February 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.