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. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Netherlands national football team 1995 → Netherlands national football team results – 1990s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Netherlands national football team 1996 → Netherlands national football team results – 1990s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Netherlands national football team 1997 → Netherlands national football team results – 1990s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Netherlands national football team 1998 → Netherlands national football team results – 1990s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Netherlands national football team 1999 → Netherlands national football team results – 1990s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page is officially not needed as the data that it came was merged into the Netherlands national football team results – 1990s article. Matt294069 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per {{R from merge}} and as there have been articles at these plausible titles for in at least some cases a decade there is a high chance of incoming external links that would be unnecessarily broken by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf, plausible search terms. GiantSnowman 08:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when these came up in the NPP queue I was expecting articles which themselves might still be possible and notable. As redirects this is as GS and Thryduulf note a completely plausible search term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2019 (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 per G6 by Eagles247. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Curtis Jones (footballer) (version 2) → Curtis Jones (footballer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary and unlikely to generate any redirects JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. @JMHamo: This redirect has edit history ({{R with history}}), so it needs to be realtained for attribution purposes. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Which no longer matters since I have now moved the edit history to Curtis Jones (English footballer). So, the nominated should now be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G6 as now technically unnecessary and obviously unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2019 (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. The person is mentioned in a few articles, but they're either non-notable or this is a WP:REDLINK case. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarcísio Zanon → Samba school#Carnavalesco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned in the article. Its probably a self-promotion redirect. CAPTAIN MEDUSA 20:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Cutting this one out like a surgeon. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ''Weird Al'' Yankovic → "Weird Al" Yankovic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect bypasses the title creation blacklist due to containing consecutive apostrophes, and has the potential to create technical problems. During the past five years, there have been several nominations for redirects such at this one, possibly starting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles. A few years later, the title blacklist was updated to restrict such titles from being created due to consecutive apostrophes in titles creating wiki markup issues. And where there used to be several such titles in 2014 ... now, there are only two (and the other one is '', which should remain.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ...And check that out, the wiki markup issue in action: The title of this redirect is ''Weird Al'' Yankovic, but thanks to the wiki markup activating, it appears as Weird Al Yankovic in the section header. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unlikely search term as costly. And weird. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Eat it, open up the bin and delete it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; looks like G6 housekeeping to me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but it doesn't look like any flavour of G6 to me - it doesn't seem to have been created in error, it's not in the way of a page move, it's not a dated category, it's not been discussed at TfD and it wasn't a temporary creation for any reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Exactly: Per the edit history, this redirect was not created in error, which is why I brought this one up for discussion rather than tagging it for {{Db-g6}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2019 (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. I've used Thryduulf's suggested language in the deletion summary. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:X3 → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was created a bit prematurely by a user who decided there was consensus for a speedy criterion "X3" when there actually was not. This redirect should be redlinked until the day that a third WP:XCSD is actually required and to prevent confusion that such a criterion exists in the interim. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading and unuseful. Due to this redirect, one can potentially get the false impression that X3 is an official policy. Geolodus (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a quick review of the incoming links shows it has a history of being used as a stand-in for a deletion criterion. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it makes far more sense to wait for an actual X3 to exist.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I retargeted this (shortly after the discussion was archived) I was torn between that and nominating it here, given there are incoming links that will be broken. My thinking was that if/when there is an actual X3 there would be some sort of hatnote or something explaining the proposal (it's not the first proposal for an X3 but it is the most significant to date by a large margin). The best part of a month later and I'm still undecided which I think would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Misleading, and was being used inappropriately in MfD discussions, being referred to as policy. It's not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was in the process of snow-closing this when I read Thryduulf's comment more closely and it made me think (dammit!). I still think deletion is best. Until such time as there is an X3 criterion, there's no need to have readers click on it to find the discussion about why it's not. If there is consensus for such a criterion in the future we can briefly explain that there have been proposals for it in the past that don't relate to whatever the future one is about, or not, it probably won't matter as this won't show up erroneously in any deletion logs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to linking the archived discussion in the redirect's deletion log. That would allow a non-admin to follow the breadcrumbs if they really cared to do so. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. "G8: redirect to a proposed speedy deletion criterion which failed to reach consensus." What do you think, Thryduulf? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer linking to this discussion rather than a speedy criterion, but the other link is good, so perhaps: "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Wikipedia:X3 closed as delete. This was a redirect to a proposed speedy deletion criterion which failed to reach consensus."? Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works. I thought the deletion would qualify for G8 but you're right, a link to this discussion is better. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. The usual link to this discussion would give all the necessary context by clicking through, including a link to the failed proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's true, we'd just possibly save interested readers a click. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the direct link to the explanation will be particularly useful to those seeking to understand the context in which the links were placed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Ivanvector, when WP:X3 eventually does become a thing, then won't readers of past conversations be confused as to why on earth the portal purges relied so heavily on the WP:CSD criterion for all post-2022 meme articles^{or whatever else X3 ends up becoming}? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL: a hatnote can be added to wherever the X3 redirect targets at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I am probably wrong about this, but isn't that nonstandard for WP:CSD? Why did we bother to include WP:CSD#U4 as a section except to say this was an out of process non-policy? It'd be just as simple to do the same for WP:X3 imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly it wont be a hatnote, but there will be some link on the CSD page (or wherever X3 targets) to the proposal that people can follow that will be more useful to them than this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the number of people following links from years-old MfD discussions will be low enough that this won't be a huge problem. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but that assumes it'll be years before there is an X3 criterion that gains consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per @Northamerica1000. Misleading, and was being used inappropriately in MfD discussions, being wrongly referred to as policy. Only by an editor who is not currently active, but they may return.

Wrt to Thryduulf's point, it seems to be that the best solution is to leave a note at WP:CSD that X3 was a significant failed proposal, so to avoid confusion the number should not be re-used, and any new X proposal should start at X4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a page with a {{failed proposal}} tag or retarget to WP:CSD#Proposed criteria that failed to gain support or something like that. While I agree that the redirect makes no sense, I think it would be helpful to keep it alive with information on why it is not a criterion for people following the incoming links. Deleting it would create a lot of red links that will confuse readers. Also, per BrownHairedGirl I think to avoid confusion the next number should be X4 anyway, so keeping this in place with a note why it is not and never was real won't be a problem anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There was never an "X3", so this redirect existing is confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The template itself is not a "failed proposal" the AN discussion is. Have to agree with Steel1943's comment: There was never an "X3" and the fact that it's being quoted inappropriately in MfDs as if it's a policy are both another reasons to get rid of it. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokémon anime in Pakistan → Pokémon anime in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect bordering on vandalism, target does not mention Pakistan at all. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation, if the latter is applicable. Either way, a red link to "X in Y" is better than a redirect that leads to the mostly unrelated "X in Z". Geolodus (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The redirect is likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2019 (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. Redirect target has been deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• LEDC, Canlubang → Ceris I & II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Pointless redirect. hueman1 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article clearly notes that "LEDC" is an alternative name and that it is located in Canlubang and the term gets uses. The target is currently at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceris I & II, if it is deleted then this redirect will be speedily deleted under criterion G8. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf, though I think the target article will rightly be deleted. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dictatorship in Greece → Greek military junta of 1967–1974  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Biased against the subject, and could also refer to the 4th of August Regime.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On the first point see WP:RNEUTRAL - redirects from non-neutral search terms to neutrally titled articles are explicitly allowed, and even encouraged where they widely used - and with thousands of google hits for the exact phrase this is widely used. On the second point, the current target is the clear primary topic for the term - 19 of the first 20 hits on google for "Dictatorship in Greece" -Wikipedia are about the 1967-74 regime, the other one is a 2011 article opining that the national unity government under Lucas Papademos was at serious risk of becoming a dictatorship. Indeed, there are no hits on the first six pages relating to the 4th of August Regime, but this can be linked in a hatnote from the current target if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. In addition, the target page explicitly calls the junta a dictatorship, so I fail to see the bias against the subject. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 13 May 2019 (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 List of Japanese apple cultivars. Those opposing a retarget make a good case that it's an unlikely search term, but Consensus is to retarget ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apple (Japan) → Apple Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same rationale as a similar redirect set up for Apple (Italy), the subject doesn't include any real coverage of Japan in particular. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Retarget to Japanese apple / cultivars as recently propsed. Not a particular disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC) updated 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe retarget to Category:Japanese apples or something similar? feminist (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Japanese apple cultivars, it's preferable to my CNR proposal. feminist (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no real coverage of Apple in Japan. I rather strongly oppose a retarget to Category:Japanese apples because this specific search term would not be used when looking for information on Japanese apples, and the proposed target is a WP:CNR anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Category:Japanese apples per Feminist. I generally prefer retargeting over deletion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see the benefit of a WP:CNR to Category:Japanese apples (a CNR is no longer being proposed); anyone searching for Apple Japan will get results related to individual Japanese apple cultivars and the List of Japanese apple cultivars anyway. Because parenthesis have the specific meaning of disambiguating titles on Wikipedia, keeping titles with parenthetical disambiguation that have no clear article target seems misleading to me. e^πi (talk | contribs) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note after original vote: while I think creating List of Japanese apple cultivars was a good idea, I still think we shouldn't retarget the redirect because it's ambiguous. The redirect was originally created because someone linked a title in a citation that led to Apple's Japanese website and shortly after redirected the link target to the company. This alone demonstrates it is ambiguous for me.

  Additionally, I continue to see no practical reason for keeping it. The only scenario I can imagine where one could somehow stumble across this redirect but miss the List of Japanese apple cultivars article is if one searched for "Apple (" and looked at the (ten) search suggestions, but than this redirect is just taking real estate away from more directly related targets; apple already has enough parenthesis-disambiguated titles. Not every title related to a general topic needs a parenthesis-disambiguated redirect. e^πi (talk | contribs) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in lieu of redirecting to a dab or set index at Japanese apple if anyone is interested. Cross-namespace redirects to categories don't really help readers, and the category does not have a main article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector: Good idea! I just did that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector: Your !vote is a bit unclear to me because of how the discussion ended up structured. I assume even though List of Japanese apple cultivars was created, you're still in favor of deleting this redirect? e^πi (talk | contribs) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @E to the Pi times i: no, I'm fine with how it turned out. I'm probably more neutral on the end result than some others here, for the reasons you described, but it's harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector: Oh, apologies for over-interpreting your vote.

  Since Tavix and I are the only dissenters, and there's 6 !votes for retargetting to the apple cultivars list, it's almost certain this discussion will retarget.

  But I guess that's always the fallback with redirects; even though I disagree with keeping this one, it won't really hurt that much if it's kept. e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Japanese apple. Disambiguate/set index It'd be helpful enough for a reader per the comments by Ivanvector. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Updated vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how disambiguations work. They are for things that would be named "Japanese apple", not for examples of apples that are from Japan. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese apple. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been resolved. It's now a list at List of Japanese apple cultivars. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Japanese apple seems like a good solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @AngusWOOF and Rubbish computer: you previously voted, but List of Japanese apple cultivars has been suggested as an alternative target. Does your opinion about deleting remain the same? e^πi (talk | contribs) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Japanese apple cultivars. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the fruit redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:23, 11 May 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anarchist Somalia → History of Somalia (1991–2006)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

POV and misleading.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How so and how so? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are not required to be neutral, during this period of time Somalia lacked a central government, and the redirect has had a lot of usage as evidenced by its page views. feminist (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Feminist's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Feminist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: this could potentially be useful (per Feminist's points), but is indeed misleading as anarchist as an adjective refers to someone or something explicitly in favor of anarchy, which Somalis were not during this period. --Geolodus (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2019 (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.