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 Long division. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Division algorithm for integers → Euclidean division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

May also refer to long division. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Long division. Apparently, this redirect date from the time where Euclidean division was called "Division algorithm" (although this article is not about an algorithm). Retargetting to Division algorithm would be possible, but, although this article has a section "Long division", it is focused on computer algorithms, and it is probable that Long division is more convenient for most people searching for this phrase. Note that each possible target is linked in the hatnote of the other (for Division algorithm I have just added it). D.Lazard (talk) 07:42, 10 June 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 Template:R from colloquial name. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from slang term → Template:R from alternative name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:R from slang → Template:R from non-neutral name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should point to the same target. Note that Template:R from colloquial name exists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There might be a strong argument for deletion of the second nom, {{R from slang}}. These were created by the same editor, who made both of these on the same day two minutes apart, and who hasn't edited since early 2014. The first nom, {{R from slang term}}, may have possibilities of becoming an rcat template; however, I see no need for two such similar redirects. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that they should point to the same target if both exist, neutral regarding the eventual target but whichever is used, the existing transclusions should be reviewed for if the new target is appropriate --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to R from colloquial name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Paine Ellsworth, had you seen this suggestion? I'd expect you to support it (though of course you're under no obligation to do so!). --BDD (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:R from colloquial name per Headbomb. I don't see why not. Non-neutral is a separate question, which should be applied or not individually. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 17 June 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. There's definite consensus that the current redirect target is ambiguous and hence not the correct choice. "Paris of the X" has been specifically shown as a highly used cliché for many locations, and there are certainly plenty of general mentions of multiple places being "Paris of the South", so a disambiguation page seems to be the most helpful option for readers. I will draft a disambiguation page based on some of the suggestions here, and explicitly encourage others to improve it. If someone wishes to create a general article talking about, or listing places, involving "Paris of the X", that also seems to be encouraged here. ~ mazca ^talk 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Paris of the South → Asheville, North Carolina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Paris of the south → Asheville, North Carolina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

This nickname is neither unique to Asheville nor mentioned in the article. Google does give hits for Asheville, but also for Buenos Aires, Nice, Barcelona and New Orleans, the latter the only mention in article body text I can find (at List of city nicknames in Louisiana, it is the title of a reference at Buenos Aires). I'm torn between deletion and a List of cities nicknamed Paris of the South. Given the lack of article space mentions I'm not certain a dab page is best, but I'm not opposed if people prefer that option. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as with Paris of the North. CrazyBoy826 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added Paris of the south. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only article with a sourced use of "Paris of the South" is List of city nicknames in Louisiana referring to New Orleans, but even that source is an archived web page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A disambiguation page should probably list Carrboro, North Carolina ("The Paris of the Piedmont"), perhaps in a see also. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Given Paris of the Prairies, Paris of the Piedmont, Paris of the Middle East, Paris of the plains, Paris of the East (disambiguation), Paris of the West (disambiguation), Paris of the North (disambiguation), Little Paris, Paris of the Antilles, Paris of the Caribbean, Paris of the Tropics, Paris of the Lesser Antilles, Paris of the Savonia, Paris of Appalachia, and others we should probably have an article listing them all somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while it may be possible to write a proper article on this term, or at least a set index article, based on the responses here it's not immediately clear what should be included in such a list, and I think it's unreasonable to expect the discussion's closer to take that on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 19 June 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 Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. Wikipedia's coverage of this strange controversy has been quite fluid with several previously-suggested targets being deleted and/or having mentions removed. Later participation generally seems to conclude that this target has settled as the most helpful encyclopedic mention of her. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lori Klausutis → Joe Scarborough#Resignation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

False light libel BLP violation. This person and her death is unrelated to his resignation. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. CrazyBoy826 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an ongoing discussion about the target at Talk:Joe Scarborough#Lori Klausutis. Someone has invoked a 10+ year old consensus (that does not mention Klausutis by name). In my opinion, it is very likely something about the incident is to be included, but it is too soon to tell, whether Klausutis will be named and in which section that would be. Politrukki (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I made the redirect when there wuz still content naming her in the "Resignation" section. As it is currently the redirect makes no sense, since someone removed the info afterwards. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Kingoflettuce: Why don't you restore the removed content? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could and be justified in doing so since that's the consensus that was reached, albeit some time ago. Right now there is an ongoing re-discussion though, so I wouldn't want to be disruptive or anything. But certainly "Lora Klausutis", if not deserving of an article of her own, has much relevance to (Redacted) her former Congressman employer. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not invoke any consensus. The text has serious BLP concerns, among other things, suggesting the LP resigned due to a death when the resignation was announced a month before the death. Some text may be added on the subject. But, I can’t imagine that it would be added to that section anyhow, making the redirect invalid. And be careful. There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence suggesting he killed her. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply making a factual statement that insinuations, if not straight-up accusations, have been made that Joe killed her. I'm not making any original claims and FYI, Trump wasn't the first to raise it either. You should be careful not to censor and gaslight Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, hurtful and unnecessary. Speedy delete. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. We need settled, current consensus to mention her by name if there's going to be a redirect. (For now, I am not expressing an opinion as to whether we should do so.) --BDD (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget here or here. AshMusique (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second article looks like the correct target -- assuming the article remains, and if so, her name remains in the article. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - given this name has been in the news recently, the redirect should exist, and this is the most logical target for it. (Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough Murder Conspiracy Theory, linked above, would be an even better target, but I've just nominated that one for deletion as a clear case of NOTNEWS.) Robofish (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This name is a likely search term. Joe Scarborough#Resignation is the best target. Donald Trump did not start this conspiracy theory. It has been around for almost 20 years, and Michael Moore also raised the issue. So redirecting to "Trump tweets" is not appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Per BLP policy. Conspiracy theories or Trump tries could be a possible redirect, but surely surviving family deserve better treatment than being dragged into baseless conspiracy theories. --Cantabwarrior (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was "surely surviving family deserve better treatment..." part of Wikipedia policy? We might as well scrub out all unsolved murder articles here, for starters. Let's not pretend that Joe Scarborough is of zero relevance here... Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget with appropriate entry to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. ==Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She is not notable. Jimbo weighed in on the AfD ages ago. Delete and salt. This is pathetic. It was deleted when her husband made a direct appeal that his dead wife not be used in a political spat almost 20 years ago. Pathetic that hacks want to continue this. Stop. Delete. She is not a part of this farce. ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's pathetic is your harping on what mighty Jimmy said ages ago (precisely!), disregarding whatever else has happened since then--and the fact that we're discussing a redirect here. She may not be notable enuf to warrant her own article (the AfD proves that much) but her name remains a likely and relevant search term that, as things stand, should redirect to Joe Scarborough's article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is not part of this. Dragging her name through this is disgusting. It adds nothing. Nothing has happened that makes this person part of this. Nothing has changed that in 20 years. It's hackery. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why was this created over the previous delete (multiple times)? Not new. Jimbo said it best ant it's still true. Review everything here and it's not the only time. Articles_for_deletion/Lori_Klausutis ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough Murder Conspiracy Theory has been deleted per AfD. BD2412 T 04:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, where one can find the most information about Lori Klausutis on Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On the other hand, I have seen the targeted article and I think it is short. Lacks the Chinese coronavirus origin by the POTUS, by the way.BoldLuis (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, which contains information about her. Not a very active user (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, which has the most information about Klausutis at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 19 June 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 Religious liberalism, which links to the articles that would be covered in a dab as a broad concept article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberal theology → Liberal Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This phrase, "liberal theology," does not refer exclusively to a left-leaning application of Christian theology and as such, should not redirect exclusively to "Liberal Christianity". This is quite a blatant case of christocentric bias. ItsPugle (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or disambiguate. In any event, the current target cannot stand. Compare Liberal Judaism (a DAB page), Liberal Islam and Liberal Catholic (a DAB page), and for all I know interpretations of other denominations or religions. Narky Blert (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' or convert to a dab page per Narky Blert - multiple valid targets --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to religious liberalism, which is necessarily tied to liberal theology. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to religious liberalism per Nyttend. Ltwin (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as a valid search term, but with no agreed on target. For example, I immediately thought of Liberation theology. Jontesta (talk) 17:34, 11 June 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Boiling Springs, Pennsylania → Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete this redirect. It is based on an implausible misspelling. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; see RHARMFUL. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect Ezhao02? — J947 ^[cont] 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: Is there a way to check if any articles link here? It's an unnecessary page if none do. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • People search this up more than they are linked here; links cause a relatively small portion of redirect pageviews. — J947 ^[cont] 21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, is there a way to check how often people search Pennsylania, a redirect that currently doesn't exist and is based on the same misspelling? Ezhao02 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No – but, I've created that redirect as I deem it to be a fairly common misspelling. Ezhao02, again: please read RHARMFUL. Apologies if you already have, but it should be considered the most important guideline at RfD. — J947 ^[cont] 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your input. I read RHARMFUL the first time you mentioned it, and I think you may be right about the redirect. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ezhao02: There is: go to the redirect; in the menu on the left-hand panel, select under Tools "What links here". In this case, zero mainspace pages link to the redirect. In the same menu, click "Page information", and at the bottom "Pageview statistics". Change date type to monthly, and select a start date as far back as possible, and you'll see that the redirect has negligible page views (6 in the last year). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - It's 10 years old and it took me awhile to catch the error. This isn't ridiculous, isn't harmful, and may be occasionally helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, hence the creation of the misspelled redirect Pennyslvania. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:18, 10 June 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 keep. It is WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Las Vegas/Climate → Las Vegas#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term. People who want to get to content would go to Las Vegas and click Climate in the ToC. CrazyBoy826 21:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an {{R from old history}}: this is from February 2001; a month after Wikipedia was created. — J947 ^[cont] 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. This really old thing is worth keeping because it's helpful by specifying the intended section, even though we don't also have Climate of Las Vegas, also a helpful title. Regards, SONIC678 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. {{R from subpage}}. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above. With a redirect this old there is a high likelihood of incoming links that would be unnecessarily broken. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 10 June 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 Majoritarianism. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Majoritarian → Majority rule  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Majoritarianism seems to be the most logical target. Majority rule is just the institutional expression of a belief in majoritarianism. See definition of majoritarian per Webster's and Oxford Dictionaries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget pe nom. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Majoritarianism as {{R from adjective}}. (It's also {{R from noun}}, but let's not overcomplicate.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Majoritarianism. I agree, but I thought of the noun first, although I suspect that the adjective gets more use. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not retarget. To me, and probably to most other people who are not very familiar with philosophy, "majoritarian" simply describes a type of system for counting votes or electing representatives (like the ones used in parliamentary elections in the UK). This appears to be covered at the current target (but I'm not sure if First-past-the-post voting is not relevant as well – that was the target of the redirect for the two and half years after the article that stood at this title got merged there). I don't believe that the the political philosophy of Majoritarianism encompasses these topics (and the article itself goes at some length to emphasise the distinction). Disambiguation might be a good option, as the term is indeed also used as an adjective for the political philosophy, and additionally as a noun referring to a supporter of a majority party (the latter according to the OED). – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Uanfala. The definition from the second external link the nom provided can actually also mean majority rule, not only majoritarianism. Disambig is the best option. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Majoritarianism per Narky Blert. Uanfala's points are well taken, but until we have such a disambiguation page, retargeting doesn't strike me as obviously harmful. --18:59, 17 June 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite → Definite quadratic form  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete and list of words that could also refer to matrices and functions and WP:XY applies and see also pages positive definiteness and negative definiteness and positive semidefinite and the nomination at #Negative semidefinite. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too long a search term and fails the WP:XY policy. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:28, 16 June 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 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• JudæoChristianity → Judeo-Christian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• JudæoChristian → Judeo-Christian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Camel-case creation by Neelix without reason. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CamelCase in Wikipedia has been dropped since 2002, so I agree that there's no reason why these redirects should have been created in 2007 in the first place. Both redirects had no pageviews from 11 March 2020 to 8 June 2020 (before these are nominated for RfD). --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - unlikely search term, unneeded --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We do not write articles titles in CamelCase since 2002. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:24, 10 June 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 Definite quadratic form. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Negative semi-definite → Definiteness of a matrix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Negative semidefinite → Definite quadratic form  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Disambiguate as done with Positive semidefinite. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason why not to create the same disambiguation page as with positive semidefinite. --bender235 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both (and also positive semidefinite) to the same target as semidefinite, that is Definite quadratic form. Definite quadratic form is clearly (for mathematicians) the primary topic. Definiteness of a matrix is a WP:OR title, and essentially a content fork that must be merged into Definite quadratic form, or, at least, renamed Definite symmetric matrix. As far as I know, all articles that have "definite" or "semidefinite" in their title (for example semi-definite kernel, semidefinite bilinear form, semidefinite programming) involve semidefinite quadratic forms or their matrices. This show that Definite quadratic form is the primary topic. So, all adjective phrases ending with "definite" must have thistarget. I seems that positive-definite function is a uniqe exception, and this can be solved by a hatnote. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 9 June 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pion (publisher) → SAGE Publishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if it's not mentionned, mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bearing in mind WP:BURDEN (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material), I have added a sourced mention of Pion's association with SAGE at SAGE Publishing#Acquisitions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Headbomb. Although it is nice if a redirected term is mentioned on the target page, this is not a hard requirement for a redirect per WP:REDIR. Redirects like this one serve as anchor plates for links (f.e. from citations), they indicate a relation (in this case a former name or ownership relation) and help reverse lookup. I find it counter-productive to nominate such redirects for deletion. If someone want them to be mentioned on the target page they should just add it there. However, sometimes this is not practical, as the creator of the redirect may not have time for it (because he is working on something else like providing a citation) or may not have enough knowledge about a publisher topic to add a whole section, but (with the source in his hands) he might still know that the publisher relation and therefore that a redirect should exist. Content contribution and infrastructure work do not necessarily happen at the same time. Nominating such redirects for deletion is putting them on risk of being deleted accidently, and thereby a piece of knowledge provided by a contributor to be lost. That's a waste of our resources.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:26, 15 June 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 (although k-short and k-long are not ambiguous with k-). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• K- → Spot test (lichen)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

May also refer to a K− meson. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate(?) Some precedent at A-, B-, D-, etc. –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab per Hyperik. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Hyperik. I started a dab draft on the K- page. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 07:26, 10 June 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 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers → Supremacy (board game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Subject not mentioned or explained at target, as it is simply an unrelated other game by the same company. Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to disambiguation page Rollout, where I added an entry. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where it has correctly been removed again (not by me). Please add "disambiguation" to the long list of enwiki things you should perhaps refresh your knowledge of (just like redirects, notability, involvedness, and so on). Sheesh. Fram (talk) 06:39, 12 June 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 and AfD. Seems it's best to WP:IAR and just preempt this RfD, restore the article, and AfD to decide the best course. There's enough concern about RfD deleting page history of content that might be notable. —Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 8:46 (film) → List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks#Film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This used to be a standalone article until QuestFour changed it into a redirect citing "non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM". There is currently no mention of this film or related term at the target. There are no incoming links to this redirect. Either this redirect should be deleted, or the target should have content related to the redirect title. —Bagumba (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; but keep if someone can find a good reason to add it to a suitable target, or if someone can find enough WP:RS to turn it back into an article (I couldn't). As well as List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks (the current target), it isn't mentioned in List of American films of 2011 or List of American films of 2012 (the IMDb entry is unclear about the release date), and we have no article on the writer/director, Jennifer Kirabo aka Jennifer Gargano. Narky Blert (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article without prejudice to an AfD. RfD is not a competent forum at which to judge the notability of articles. The redirection was done boldly and in good faith, but I agree it is not appropriate so it should be reverted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article per Thryduulf and nominate it for AfD. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:18, 10 June 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 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States. → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Redirects with a sentence-final punctuation, delete. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible typo. Only had 3 total pageviews since creation. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You dismiss three uses as if that was beneath notice. Why don't you see this as proof the redirect is useful? Geo Swan (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three uses is not enough as justification for the keeping of this redirect IMO. It could as well be just be the creator loading his redirect three times, as pageview by the same user is counted every time per the tool's FAQ. If you consider that as a justification for keeping this redirect, I might as well program a bot that will create millions of redirects with a comma at the end of it, and say it's useful because I say so. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect Bhagyarekha ( TV series) is also under discussion today. It has been read over 5200 times. So, if three times is too few, will you agree that 5200 is enough to justify retaining a redirect? Where, between 3 and 5200 do you draw your line.

Redirects are very cheap to retain. We aren't going to run out of space for redirects. There is no real possibility that these two redirects would be needed for actual articles, about something else. So I continue to think even just three usages is enough to justify retention. Geo Swan (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also support deleting 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States., which only had 12 pageviews from creation to June 8. Such redirects are only unnecessary clutter. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Malformed page title. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soumya-8974 - could you make a greater effort to explain yourself?

This redirect has been used three times, FWIW. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly low compared to the other redirects. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. S. WP:UNNATURAL applies wonderfully. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this thing, I'm not sure people will search this with a comma at the end, also, are there other "2020 coronavirus outbreak in X," redirects, that could be bundled with this one?, Regards, SONIC678, 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one other of the sort, which I added. Though it has a period instead of a comma, the same line of reasoning applies. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - frivolous nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (both) as malformed. ComplexRational (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Deleting this is straight-up useless. — J947 ^[cont] 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Geo Swan pointed out, "This redirect has been used three times," and all of them are on May 2020. If it has routine views, then I would not nominate them for deletion. Deleting redirect is cheap, see WP:RCOSTLY. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In that same essay there is the section Sending redirects to RFD is costly. Soumya-8974, you might want to read that important section before citing that essay. — J947 ^[cont] 18:34, 16 June 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 Bavaria, refine the rest as below.

• Keep 2020 Bavaria coronavirus lockdown
• Redirect 2020 France coronavirus lockdown to COVID-19 pandemic in France#Lockdown
• Redirect 2020 Spain coronavirus lockdown to COVID-19 pandemic in Spain#Quarantines and lockdowns
• Redirect 2020 Spain lockdowns to COVID-19 pandemic in Spain#Quarantines and lockdowns
• Redirect 2020 China coronavirus lockdown to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns#China

(non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 Bavaria coronavirus lockdown → COVID-19 pandemic in Germany#Lockdown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 2020 France coronavirus lockdown → COVID-19 pandemic in France  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 2020 Spain coronavirus lockdown → COVID-19 pandemic in Spain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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

• 2020 China coronavirus lockdown → COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine 2020 Spain coronavirus lockdown and 2020 Spain lockdowns to COVID-19 pandemic in Spain#Quarantines and lockdowns, support retarget of 2020 China coronavirus lockdown to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns#China, keep the rest Bavaria one as it is. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Edited at 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Bavaria one, refine the France one to COVID-19 pandemic in France#Lockdown, and refine the others to the sections suggested by pandakekok9. Regards, SONIC678 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot about that France redirect. I also support refining 2020 France coronavirus lockdown to COVID-19 pandemic in France#Lockdown. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 03:41, 10 June 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 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Janta curfew → COVID-19 pandemic in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Janta Curfew → COVID-19 pandemic in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew. Oppose nom's retarget. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both proposals made by Soumya-8974. The topic of "Janata Curfew" (one-day voluntary lockdown) is already covered in the article COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew. Keep both redirects targeted to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: I don't understand your logic. That's exactly why both redirects should target to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew, which is what I was counterproposing. This is why Janata Curfew and Janata curfew redirects to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TemTem: I'm opposing both retarget proposals made by Soumya-8974 (one for "Janta Curfew" and another for "Janta curfew"), not yours. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 10:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nom's proposal. Retarget both to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew. - Mayankj429 (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom's proposal. Retarget both to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew per TemTem and Mayankj429. It's clearly what readers would be looking for, with one of those very common variant transliterations from languages of the Subcontinent. Narky Blert (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom's proposal. Retarget both to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew, since it covers what the Janata Curfew actually is. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom's proposal. Retarget both to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew, because it makes sense. sachinag (talk) 19:12, 12 June 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 Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CCP coronavirus → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

See the RfD of CCP virus. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon, per my comment in the said RfD. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soumya-8974, you tell us to see the previous rfd, yet there are two of them, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_12#CCP_Virus closed as no consensus, and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#CCP_Virus closed with the redirect target we have now. I am inclined to stick with the status quo. How about making an effort to explain yourself more fully? Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I am talking about the RfD that closed as retarget to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either delete or retarget to SARS-CoV-2. I've heard of it being referred to as the "CCP virus", but not the "CCP coronavirus". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon for consistency with the retarget of CCP virus at the more recent RFD from 25 May. At 73,000 Google Hits, it seems to be potential search term. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon like what we do in CCP virus. --DRIZZLE (talk) 06:34, 11 June 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 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Corona baby → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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

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

See the RfD of Condemic, COVIDemic, Coronababy, etc. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We are not Urban Dictionary. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soumya-8974, please provide the actual wikilinks to previous discussions when you think they are adequate substitutes to explaining yourself fully here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we cannot find any evidence that the redirects are really used on reliable sources. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and previous rationales. Regards, SONIC678 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous discussions --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion above. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and close discussion. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:26, 16 June 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 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Occhio → Sound hole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned on the article. I suggest deletion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Occhio is Italian for eye. I don't see any connection between an occhio, or eye, to a violin or guitar. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 09:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This meaning doesn't appear in either wikt:occhio or it:wiktionary:occhio, or on the Italian DAB page it:Occhio, or in it:Foro di risonanza (the Italian equivalent of sound hole). Retargetting to eye would fall foul of WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as creator). I made this page to take it off Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/33. This is a real meaning of the word found in reference works, as you can see in the entry at the Harvard Dictionary of Music. It must have appeared as a headword in at least one such work to be on the list. Ordinarily such music terminology is useful to have in other languages, because musical directions may appear in scores in several European languages. In this case, though, the usage seems rare enough that it's not even mentioned on Italian wiki pages Narky Blert cites. I'm pretty inclusionist but I don't see why it would need to be here. Rigadoun (talk) 18:35, 11 June 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 deleted by Czar. It looks like the draft was taken to AfD, which closed as delete earlier today. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leo Niehorster → List of historians by area of study#Military history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, may be notable as there is a dewiki page de:Leo Niehorster. buidhe 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I created a draft article of him using Google Translate. I also added him to the list just in case the article won't be accepted. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This Leo Niehorster doesn't appear to be notable, and thus shouldn't be included at the target article. While doing a search for sources, I found some coverage of a different Leo Niehorster [1], who is an art critic rather than a military historian. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 16 June 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) 18:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Collapse (2020) → Coronavirus recession  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term. I haven't seen any major news source using this term to refer to the coronavirus recession. The redirect also only had 7 pageviews from 12 May 2020. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there is a similar redirect Great Collapse (2020-present), does that count. Also the title 'great collapse' has been used to discuss multiple other topics including a climate change report, the name of a 2017 album by Fit for an Autopsy and more. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm a bit more neutral on the redirect identified by Captain Galaxy because the year disambiguator removes a lot of ambiguity, but that one is not a great redirect either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 16 June 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. Unlikely typos for relatively obscure storms. ~ mazca ^talk 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tropical Strom Yolanda (1992) → 1992 Pacific hurricane season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Tropical Strom Rachel (1990) → 1990 Pacific hurricane season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Tropical Strom Kika (2008) → 2008 Pacific hurricane season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Tropical Strom Elida (1996) → 1996 Pacific hurricane season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Several tropical storm related redirects with an improbable typo. Correctly spelled counterparts already exist for each one of these. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pageview statistics from toolforge in the last 90 days show less than 30 total pageviews. Only Tropical Strom Rachel (1990) got a pageview on this month. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, these redirects will puzzle German speakers, see wikt:Strom#German. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I didn't even see the typos until it was pointed out. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:40, 15 June 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.