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) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aussie Cheese Fries → Outback Steakhouse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2020 (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) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Double Beef and Bacon → McDonald's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2020 (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) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Big mouth bacon burger → Chili's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2020 (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) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pepper Pals → Chili's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (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 the redirect.. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019–2020 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 2019-2020 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 2019–20 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 2019-20 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation) (related disambiguation page)

The first two redirects were created on August 3. There was then a brief RFD discussion and following the RFD, two additional redirects were created along with a disambiguation page. The redirects receive very little traffic and I suspect much of the traffic is from the editors discussing the redirects.

A hatnote was then added to COVID-19 pandemic linking all COVID-19 pandemic readers to the disambiguation page. I removed the hatnote (hatnote discussion here) but it seems like we need an RFD for this? I tried retargeting the redirects directly to the disambiguation page but that was reverted.

Seeking consensus that we don't need a hatnote on COVID-19 pandemic (a topic that receives about 50,000 PVs/day) to support these redirects--presumably a distraction for the 49,998 users who arrived on the page through other means. Neutral on keeping or deleting the redirects but the 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation) page is kind of nice for search purposes. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris, J947, Gerald Waldo Luis, Spicy, Shhhnotsoloud, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Seventyfiveyears, Soumya-8974, Rosguill, and Sdkb: Regarding '2019-2020 outbreak' redirects and hatnote. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kinda agree. For the record, I used the redirect once. I feel like everyone has forgotten that it is once the 2019-20 outbreak, thus it has little to no views. It is also discriminate, as there are other outbreaks in '2019-20'. I'm using the Android app here so I can't look at the statistics but if I remember, 23 people used the 2019—2020 outbreak redirect (with the en dash). I would suggest looking at that redirect for several more days, but the one with the short dash may not be needed for me. I would also suggest removing "(disambiguation)" in the disambig's title. GeraldWL 01:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to pick a period when the redirects weren't being actively discussed: 2019–2020 outbreak (1PV/day); 2019-2020 outbreak (2PV/day); 2019–20 outbreak (1PV/day); 2019-20 outbreak (2PV/day). Renaming '2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation)' to '2019–2020 outbreaks' as a list article could work but I fear opening the floodgates to a barrage of needless list articles for every year where more than one thing of the same type happened. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a very reasonable sample size FWIW, and it would be inflated by views coming from after the first RfD anyhow. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to capture the period after the last comment was posted to the RFD and before its closure with the creation of hatnote, etc. 5 days actually provides a reasonably good sample size for our purposes. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2019-20 outbreak (disambiguation) could be a list article titled 2019-2020 outbreak on outbreaks that happened during said period, although I doubt everyone could agree on that. As in the redirects, "2019-2020 outbreak" is already outdated, discriminate, and vague. I cannot see any light in that redirect. For me, there's no significance in that previous name anymore. I'd say remove. That also sums up my thoughts on the hatnote. It's also really annoying, having a lead of 5 paragraphs and a disturbing hatnote above it. GeraldWL 07:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; my opinion hasn't changed and I don't see why it would. This is the 2019–20 outbreak – the fact that some think that that isn't so is beside the point. The redirects that have the hyphen shouldn't be deleted per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 74 – they are harmless anyhow, so what would be gained by deleting those ones? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong objection to keeping other than perhaps they were never needed. More interested though in confirming that keeping does not necessitate a hatnote on the target page. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my previous comment in all regards – that includes my statement that No hatnote should be required. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about keeping/deleting redirects. I am also at your side in these cases: what is to be gained by deleting useful redirects like this. They are cheap N harmless. Better dabifying the redirect. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my comment, I explicitly referred to my comment in the previous discussion on this matter. That comment in the previous discussion explicitly referred to how the COVID-19 pandemic is far and away the primary topic in this scenario – and neither of my comments were in any way referring to deletion in any way. Soumya-8974, please read both of my comments on the matter before assuming my keep is directly in opposition to a delete result – remember that keep !votes mean not just don't delete but keep the target as is as well. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • J947, no, COVID-19 is not the only 2019-20 outbreak. The redirect target is sort of discriminate, as there are more outbreaks occurring in the period (2019–20 Philippines polio outbreak, 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak, 2019–2020 New Zealand measles outbreak, 2019–2020 measles outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 2019–20 locust infestation). At some devices, COVID-19 pandemic's article needs time to load, so logically, it would be saddening if people wanted to search one of the other outbreaks, had to wait it for long, only to know that it is not the one they're looking for, and they had to click the hatnote (annoyingly placed). I may sound pathetic, but I hope you get my thought. GeraldWL 07:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had read my previous comment, you would see that my opinion is that the raging pandemic is by far and away the primary topic for 2019–2020 outbreak. A disambiguation page at the base title or a hatnote I view as unneeded – the reader should realise that they made a mistake not specifying their search enough, and their subsequent search should be more specific and direct them to the page they're looking for. Almost all readers when searching this up will be looking for the pandemic, and I believe that it is best to not help the readers looking for a different outbreak. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Round-robin swap per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move disambiguation page to base name. There are only 2 choices: there's either a disambiguation page at the base name; or a (disambiguation) page plus a hatnote at the base name. Since the nom reports consensus rules out the latter, it has to be the former. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm relatively new to redirects. To confirm, you're saying we should effectively make 2019–2020 outbreak the disambiguation page and delete the current disambiguation page. Then point the remaining 3 redirects to 2019–2020 outbreak (or perhaps 2019–2020 outbreaks). Is that accurate? - Wikmoz (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A WP:ROUNDROBIN swap would happen between 2019–2020 outbreak and 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation) to preserve histories. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wikmoz:. Yes. The disambiguation page would be at 2019–2020 outbreak and 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation) would point to it (hence "round robin swap"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is or move. My opinion on this matter remains unchanged from the previous discussion, and I agree that a hatnote is completely unnecessary and would be sort of an eyesore for anyone who reads the article. I also support a move per Shhhnotsoloud above, seems like the best solution for avoiding a hatnote. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move. The COVID-19 pandemic is the main outbreak. So I decided to perform a hatnote that reads "2019-2020 outbreak redirects here" and make a disambiguation page of it. That was the result of this previous discussion. But you can either keep it, move it, or retarget it. Seventyfiveyears at 19:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How many other disambiguation pages do we have with titles "[time frame] outbreak"? It feels like a WP:PTM. As long as we have 2019–2020 outbreak (disambiguation), though, not giving a hatnote seems unjustifiable. Any discomfort we feel at adding such a hatnote may well be misplaced discomfort with having such a disambiguation page in the first place. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We also have April 2011 tornado outbreak, in which tornadoes ocurred in April 2011. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 outbreak is more germane to this discussion, so I'll drop my implied opposition to the disambiguation page. But that means the status quo is untenable. We either need to have hatnotes or move the disambiguation page to the base title (see WP:MALPLACED for why retargeting to the existing disambiguation page title is unacceptable). --BDD (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the various redirects pointing to COVID19, and keep a hatnote in place on that article pointing to the disambiguation page, wherever it ends up. Yes, most readers looking for information on an outbreak in 2019-2020 are looking for coronavirus, but there are other outbreaks in the same time frame, and we do readers a disservice by making them harder to find. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I Wish You Knew → The Emancipation of Mimi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Also a song from My Baby's Gone. Disambiguate or hatnote? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate © Tbhotch^™ 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disambiguate per Tbhotch, given that there's three different WP:DABMENTIONed songs by this name, plus You Wish You Knew which might get confused with this. Drafted below the redirect. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:37, 27 August 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When I Loved You → Emily Osment discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Also a song from My Baby's Gone. Disambiguate or is there a primary topic? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Personally I don't see a reason to redirect "non-notable song" to "topic A" when there are at least two different non-notable uses. © Tbhotch^™ 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Tbhotch. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:38, 27 August 2020 (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) 15:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hankook McDonald's → McDonald's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} as a former article that was apparently WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed back in 2006. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2020 (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 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sho Sato (lawyer) → UC Berkeley School of Law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Requesting deletion per WP:RDELETE #10. Thank you, Lindenfall (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really clear here what the purpose of deleting the redirect would be. Sho Sato the lawyer is far more important in English sources than Sho Sato (footballer) but because we do not yet have an article for Sho Sato (lawyer) it redirects to the law school. A redirect to UC_Berkeley_School_of_Law#International_and_Comparative can still help people find things. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom to encourage article creation, as no information on the subject can be found at target article. If this can be expanded into a meaningful article then I see no reason not to delete. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: for some reason mention of the Sho Sato Japanese law program had fallen the article or was missing. But please take a look at the obituary: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-31-mn-20250-story.html WP:GNG? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: That content should be restored into the target article, if someone could add information about him then I wouldn't oppose keeping this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention and source of the Sho Sato program is restored into the target article. Am not convinced that the obit needs to be linked as a ref in the target article. But have done so. There's an issue that the law professor is more notable than the footballer, BUT that notability is primarily in relation to the program in his name. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Struck my previous !vote, since subject is now mentioned at the target. Thanks to In ictu oculi. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep, since the re-directer that I'd notified has now given relevance to the target, by adding the namesake building at Berkeley to the article. (Also, seems he warrants a WP article.) Lindenfall (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2020 (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 to Mississippi River per the discussion below, WP:IAR and all. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Miſsiſsippi River → Mississippi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. The long s character is unlikely to be searched. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I generally feel keep for topics in which long s was used in historical documents as it was a "correct" form of English in the past. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible and harmless per WhisperToMe. Deleting won't bring any benfits but might make it harder for someone to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WhisperToMe and Thryduulf: I'm convinced as to why this exists now, and am willing to withdraw the nomination. However, I can only withdraw as keep, while the correct target is clearly Mississippi River. Can y'all consider changing your !votes to retargeting to Mississippi River, so that this can be retargeted to the correct article through withdrawal? Hog Farm _Bacon 20:30, 26 August 2020 (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 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Denweg → Elf (Middle-earth)#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I honestly don't remember what this means in a Middle-earth context, but it's not mentioned anywhere, and doesn't appear to be a reference to anything of much importance. I may be wrong, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In a Middle Earth context this seems to be an alternative name for Lenwë (that is a redirect to the same target), under that name they are mentioned once in passing in the "Sundering" subsection but nowhere else, and never by the name "Denweg". On google the results for "denweg" as a single word are overwhelmingly for a non-notable street in Deventer, Netherlands (where it apparently refers to nl:Den (geslacht) / Pine) . As an inexact match "den weg" just means "the way" in Dutch, German and Afrikaans and so, rather unsurprisingly, there are a ton of partial title matches but nothing useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2020 (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 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Long kong → Lansium parasiticum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is not mentioned in the Lansium article. Seventyfiveyears at 17:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added a source. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Naddruf. CaptainGalaxy 20:39, 27 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Camaro Crash Helmet → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Obscure slang term. Also apparently a NN trail at Joshua Tree National Park. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:10, 26 August 2020 (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" redirects, retarget others to List of waterfalls of Kentucky. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kentucky waterfall → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• KY waterfall → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• The Kentucky waterfall → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• The KY Waterfall → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

I'm not sure if deletion or retargeting to List of waterfalls of Kentucky is better. The ones with "The" in the title should probably be deleted, not sure about the others. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to List of waterfalls of Kentucky. This is where Kentucky waterfalls are mentioned. Seventyfiveyears at 23:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the ones without "the" to List of waterfalls of Kentucky as that's not an implausible search term. Delete the ones with "The" as there is no one waterfall prominently known by that name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete those with the definite article "The" per WP:THE.
  Retarget the others per above. -2pou (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (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 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Beaver Paddle → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Aside from Urban Dictionary, there only results for this phrase I'm finding are for canoe paddles made under the brand name Beaver. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 26 August 2020 (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 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oldemark → Wendy's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Per third party search engines, the subject of this redirect seems to own part of the target subject's intellectual property. Also, the redirect may be a plausible misspelling of Oldemarkt or Olde Markt. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and let the search engine handle searches for the "oldemarkt" titles. Oldemark LLC is a subsidiary-of-a-subsidiary related to Wendy's which holds (or held) Wendy's intellectual property and licenses it back to Wendy's for royalties, which appears to be a tax-avoidance scheme, and utterly non-notable. See [1] for background. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (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 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All Porch, No Awning → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The fact that searching for this exact string gives me exactly five Google hits [2] does not instill me with confidence that this is a plausible search term. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only 10 uses in the past year, so shouldn't have any harmful impacts. -2pou (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (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 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alabama Waterfall → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A Google search is bringing up exclusively content about waterfalls in Alabama. Since List of waterfalls of Alabama doesn't exist, I don't see anywhere else for this redirect to go. The current target isn't good, so this redirect needs deleted/given a haircut. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2020 (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 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Achey-Breaky Big-Mistakey → Mullet (haircut)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Obscure slang term, likely a reference to Billy Ray Cyrus. This is Urban-dictionary-level material. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and because we can't redirect this to any of his children because it's not April Fools' Day. (And we couldn't even do it then since per our policies, April Fools' Day-related editing is restricted from occurring in the article namespace.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Whopper Lair → Burger King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Per third party search engines, this seems to be an unnotable slang-ish term invented by Dane Cook. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fries King → Burger King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pancake King → Burger King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target article's subject unclear. These seem to be individual, short-lived advertising campaigns. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The brief ad campaign for Pancake King has gotten coverage in reliable sources [3], so it may be worth mentioning somewhere. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:53, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fresh! Every Stop of the Way → In-N-Out Burger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neapolitan Shake → In-N-Out Burger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Also, per third party search engines, the top results for the redirect's phrase are mixed between recipes and a completely different fast food chain that also serves a same or similarly named product. Steel1943 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This foodstuff is not exclusive to In-N-Out. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:11, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Burger Television → In-N-Out Burger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's related to the topic somehow [4], but doesn't seem to be a strong connection, or worth mentioning anywhere. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:13, 26 August 2020 (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, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• High School Diner → Steak 'n Shake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2020 (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 Wiktionary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shambling → Zombie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Seems to be a WP:DICDEF association characterized by the way which the target subject moves. Either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary:shambling as both options will probably better help readers find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It's an uncommon word, and as well as zombies there are shambling mounds. We have no entry for the verb shamble. Shambles is too remote, and is both a singular and a plural noun. Narky Blert (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per nom, which is probably the closest title match, as Narky explains. Regards, SONIC678 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to enable uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. At least send the readers to where this is defined. Shambling is by far not exclusive to zombies. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per above. The uninhibited search results are not particularly helpful in my opinion when contrasted with the definitions provided via soft redirect. -2pou (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft retarget to wikt:shambling per 2pou. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:32, 26 August 2020 (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. Valid alternate spelling with no other plausible target presented. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuklo → Hoklo people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is confusing because it is not mentioned in the target. Seventyfiveyears at 22:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is the Cantonese pronunciation of the name. See e.g. [5] for WP:RS discussion. Similar redirects Fuklo people and Fuklos also exist, as well as the Mandarin pronunciations Fulao and Fulao people. However it seems none of these pronunciations have ever been mentioned at the target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2020 (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 redirect "g"-spellings to Autoroutes of France, delete Peaje. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Peage → Toll road  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Péage → Toll road  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Peaje → Toll road  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Suspecting these are WP:FORRED issues. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...And sure enough. Péage is a {{R with history}} as a former WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed article about this term being the French word for toll road. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These are, respectively, archaic English, French, and Spanish. Even the archaic English one seems pretty pointless to keep around. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French péage isn't archaic, it's in current use all over France for a tolling point or toll booth (not really for the road itself). I've no view on whether the redirect should be kept.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consider redirecting Péage to Autoroutes of France. (I see no mention in articles about other French-speaking nations.) Péage Island also exists. Certes (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Péage and Peage to Autoroutes of France where the term is explained. Delete Peaje to facilitate uninhibited search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is not a dictionary. Foreign words, modern or obsolete, should not be included as redirects, unless they are in common use in English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, péage is not France-specific. We've got tolls in Canada too. And pretty much every other French-speaking nation out there as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Péage per Steel1943: the history is relevant, and the note when the article was prodded and redirected indicates that usage in English-language sources is prominent. Neutral on Peage per Headbomb: péage doesn't refer to a toll highway in France, it's just the French word for a toll route. Common in bilingual parts of Canada along with tarif. It's not doing any harm, but at the same time Wikipedia is not a translation service. Delete Peaje: peaje is Spanish for "toll" and seems to be used in this context mostly in Spain but not so much in Latin America, but our Highways in Spain article doesn't mention it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even a toll route, but rather Toll (fee). Covers toll bridges, toll routes, toll crossings... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, that French speakers would call a toll road péage regardless of where it is, but we run into WP:RLOTE, since it's not a common English term for such roads. I couldn't find any content on Wikipedia using the term in a Canadian context. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Péage and Peage to Autoroutes of France, delete Peaje per Shhhnotsoloud. (And hatnote for the island.) --BDD (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Péage and Peage to Autoroutes of France - as someone living in the UK near the Channel Tunnel, I can confirm that the term is frequently used and understood by British people talking about French motorways; it's quite a distinctive part of travelling there and the French term would often be used in English-language conversation rather than "toll road" if you're talking about the French ones. Keeping their current target would also be OK, but given the above editors arguing that it isn't used in English conversation elsewhere, the specifically French target seems more appropriate to me. ~ mazca ^talk 19:31, 3 September 2020 (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 battles 1801–1900#1812. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of 1812 → War of 1812  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a good term for the target, as it was a war, not a battle. The year page 1812 lists many battles that took place in 1812, many of which were not part of this conflict. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The purpose of redirects is to take editors to the page they are looking for if they type in something different. Someone might type in "First World War" if they were looking for the article "World War I." That's not the case here. And if someone did type in Battle of 1812, it's unclear what they are looking for. Perhaps they are looking for the battle commemorated in the 1812 Overture, which was part of a different conflict. TFD (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was thinking of the 1812 Overture too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. My first thought was the Battle of Borodino (which gives the 1812 Overture its name) and my second the Battle of Salamanca, two very significant 1812 battles in the Napoleonic Wars. And, they weren't the only battles in that year's campaigns in Russia and Spain. Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 1812 which lists battles of that year. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate or set index in lieu of "retarget to 1812". If there many notable battles which occurred in 1812, then a centralized list of such battles should exist, rather than forwarding the reader to the top of a generalized year article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retarget to List of battles 1801–1900#1801–15" works too. Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of battles 1801–1900#1801–15 which is a set index article (that likely could do with splitting) that lists all the notable battles in 1812. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of battles 1801–1900#1812 per Thryduulf (I just added {{Visible anchor}}s on the years there to make navigation easier). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of battles 1801–1900#1812 per Thryduulf, which lists all notable battles in that year. Oh, and the War of 1812 extended into 1815. Regards, SONIC678 01:57, 27 August 2020 (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 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mobile phone dance → Mobile phone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Cell phone dance → Mobile phone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Phone dance → Mobile phone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Mobile dance → Mobile phone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The word "dance" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connect between the redirects and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Very random, it's not clear what a dance would have to do with a cell phone. Southerns road has no edits besides making these redirects in 2009. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:07, 27 August 2020 (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 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Solisimpi → Elf (Middle-earth)#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Appears to be an incredibly obscure early draft name for the Falmari. I don't remember this factoid, but [6] explains it. Since Falmari apparently isn't mentioned anywhere on enwiki [7], I don't think this is a helpful redirect. Since it's a valid former name, I guess there's a case for keeping, but since there's no content about the Solisimpi under their later name, I don't think there's scope for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we're not a fan-wiki for nano-factoids. I thought I had a fair grasp of the data but that is beyond obscure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (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 restore article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Body shaming → Body image  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Lemma not dealt with [yet] in given article. Hildeoc (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Body shame redirects to Modesty#Body modesty, a section that doesn't exist, though Modesty#Body does exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943:  Note: I have thus also nominated that redirect. Greetings--Hildeoc (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Special:Permalink/892699053 which has sufficient sources for now. Clearly notable topic [8] which started out as a valid WP:SPLIT (diff) + expansion not a content fork, and is not adequately covered by the current target nor the previous target social stigma of obesity (as sources note [9], body shaming can be targeted at non-obese people too). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per the ip. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Autoridad de Energía Electrica → Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is an accent in both of the last two words, and this particular redirect has one accent (Energía) but not the other (Electrica). For some unknown reason, a number of articles used this redirect and several pages failed to show both accents; I've fixed them. This is an implausible and incorrect redirect, as I've created the correctly spelled Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica. Raymie (t • c) 06:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep that several pages used this redirect demonstrates it is a plausible term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's totally plausible to miss an accent in cases like this. Regards, SONIC678 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's quite common for Spanish speakers to write without the diacritical mark when one is supposed to be used. Diacritical marks are an implementation of formal grammatical rules to consistently indicate the syllable the spoken accent falls on. In a few rare cases, the same word with and without the diacritical mark will have two totally different meanings (example: "solo" (=alone) and "sólo" (=only)). However, even in those cases the meaning can virtually always be deduced from the context. That said, "Autoridad de Energía Electrica" is not one of those cases. That is, whether or not the diacritical mark is left out of the one word Energia or the other word Electrica or both words, Energia Electrica, (as, again, Spanish speakers often do) it will make no difference because both "Energia" and "Electrica" have only one meaning, with or without the diacritcal marks. For the record, this is the long way of saying the same thing the two previous contributors have said in much shorter terms! Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2020 (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 speedily deleted by GB fan. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rocket test range → Rocket engine test facility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I created this in error, sorry. Under closer scrutiny, they are not the same thing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It could still be retargeted somewhere else though. Maybe RAAF Woomera Range Complex would be a plausible target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 26 August 2020 (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 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:CarGo (Asylum Film) 1st draft → Draft:CarGo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete Declined speedy; another redirect resulting from a move from an obviously mistitled page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2020 (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 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles should not redirect to project namespace. Sysages (talk | contribs) 01:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Altanner1991 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are a few titles in the article namespace that appropriately redirect to the project namespace, I don't believe this is one. Disruptive editing in Wikipedia jargon just means editing that is disruptive, i.e. the same as in plain English. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Wikipedia:Disruptive editing" is the only mention of "Disruptive editing" (meaning to add wrong information or take some correct information) in enwiki. So where is the proof of deleting this redirect? Seventyfiveyears at 17:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's plainly incorrect, as evident by this and this. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the high bar necessary for a cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (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.