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 04:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• History of Khanpur → Khanpur, Rahim Yar Khan#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The section this redirect points to used to exist, but has since been deleted in Special:Diff/793764554 in 2017. Hence, the redirect no longer makes sense, and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom unless the history part is added back. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:43, 17 March 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 04:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrek: The Series (season 1) → Shrek (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Shrek: The Series (season 2) → Shrek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Shrek: The Series (season 3) → Shrek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Shrek: The Series (season 4) → Shrek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects created back in 2010 seem to imply that there was a TV series based on the Shrek movies, but there's no mention of that in the article or that on the first movie, or on iMDB ("Shrek: The Series" seems to refer to the film series itself). I'm thinking we should delete these unless a better target can be found, or someone can find a reliable source confirming the existence of this supposed TV series. Regards, SONIC678 21:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Redirects are made up. Makes me wish that A11 was a general thing because then these could be speedily deleted on the fly. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:38, 17 March 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 04:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY → Special:Permalink/903936738  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Can't redirect to specific diffs without the page being classified as a soft redirect. With that being said, I cannot see how this unlinked shortcut needs to redirect where it does since it was a phrase mentioned by one editor that didn't seem to catch on. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The spot of the article that mentions the redirect is at the way bottom of a long page and the redirect is only mentioned hypothetically there. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not really working, not really used, not really appropriate. If SchroCat would like to keep/use it, I'm fine with moving to User:SchroCat/BLACKFRIDAY. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can see the idea behind why this exists, but I can see no real rationale for why it should exist. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 17 March 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable French → List of French people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous phrase, I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Notable French people. That way it is not ambiguous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OcelotCreeper - With redirects, it's a lot less complex most of the time just to create the desired one, instead of moving the existing one. Hog Farm (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok then Delete. Also, do you think List of French people should be named List of notable French people? Without the word notable, it sounds like it is a list of every single person that is or was a French citizen. It also technically does not go against the naming conventions for lists because it says to avoid using words like notable or famous, not that you cannot use them. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Plausible redirect. This is a list of notable French people. Redirects like this are cheap n harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague and meaningless. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable French what? People? books? towns? Dawn French? Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kisses? fries? revolutions? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not saying. Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vague, ambiguous, and harmful in that it is likely to take many readers to unexpected articles. WP:R#DELETE nos. 1 & 2. TJRC (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too meaningless, could mean almost anything related to France. Hog Farm (talk) 16:44, 19 March 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 delete per WP:G7 (Author said deletion was fine). (non-admin closure) _signed, OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noitaton hsilop → Reverse Polish notation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Reverse Polish notation does not mean spelling things backwards. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's about math, not language. Spelling has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever, so I see no point in spelling it backwards. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:R3. Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this must be a joke. Nobody would use it in everyday speech other than for fun, the more it's useless in scientific texts on computer science. It's not a probable misspelling, either. --CiaPan (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is fine. Sorry for the trouble. --Niedzielski (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author requested deletion here and clearly created the page more in good faith, might as well ask to DAFT this. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have speedy deleted it per notice at CSD. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 17 March 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cassiopeia Du Couteau → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Annie Hastur → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Shieda Kayn → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Another batch of LoL characters without mention at the target. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:11, 17 March 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 Faceu. Nevermind, I found the more appropriate target for this one. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Camera360 → Samsung Galaxy S III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Camera360 has nothing to do with Samsung. It's a camera app in Android. And why redirect to Galaxy S3? All phones can use it, as long as they are Android 4.0 and above I think. But the point remains. I used Camera360 in a non-Samsung phone. Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 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 resolved. Moral of the story: don't unnecessarily move redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghost of You (Outline of Color song) → Outline in Color  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, wrong band name. Jax 0677 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/procedural close. It's already been moved; that was a mistake on my part. @Jax 0677: How about instead of filing an RfD you just request it be moved at WP:RM/TR or you know, tell me I got the band name wrong in future instead of doing this? Ss112 06:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Procedurally speaking, Jax 0677 is in the right here, not you. You should not be moving around redirects in the first place, it messes up the history. Now the redirect history of Ghost of You is improperly at Ghost of You (Outline in Color song). -- Tavix ^(talk) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I was fixing my mistake. Any time I seem to comment here, you seem to have it out for me in times when I've fixed my own mistakes or taken action with my own redirects. Your reply is not surprising—it's in line with your whole mindset that anything lodged at RFD needs to go through the whole drawn-out process, and nobody should be allowed to move a redirect that was created as a result of their own error, which I still maintain is ridiculous. I think I have a right to fix my own mistakes by moving redirects I created in error.

Also rather ironic that you're telling me I shouldn't move redirects on a discussion opened by Jax 0677, when Jax 0677 has a long history of doing just that. Are you aware of that? God knows the amount of pages/redirects there are out there that were created as a result of Jax moving redirects around as a way of creating different titles. Ss112 09:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Jax 0677 in the past for unnecessarily moving redirects. You should not be doing likewise. This redirect should not have even been moved to the wrong title in the first place. If a redirect should exist, create the redirect at that title. If you created a redirect by mistake, tag it for G7. -- Tavix ^(talk) 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I was not the sole author or even primary "author" of the page (redirect)—Jax 0677 created the redirect, therefore I'm quite sure it's ineligible for G7. And there is no need to say "This redirect should not have even been moved to the wrong title in the first place". Moving it to the "wrong title" was not intentional. I have already said this. Why would anyone intentionally create a wrongly titled redirect? Ss112 10:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You intentionally tried to move Ghost of You to Ghost of You (Outline in Color song). You should not have done that. Instead, if you thought a redirect should exist at Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) you should have created the redirect at that title instead of moving Ghost of You. -- Tavix ^(talk) 10:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I "intentionally" did. However, in your previous message, you said "wrong title". The Outline in Color redirect is the right title, not the wrong Outline of Color one, which was a mistake that I corrected after Jax filed this here. If you meant it was wrong to do so, then you should not have said "wrong title" because that is misleading. I have also already told you I don't care about this particular song, so I would not have made the redirect for the song myself otherwise. Jax created a redirect for this specific song, so I (attempted to) preserve his intention by (eventually) moving it out of the way to Ghost of You (Outline in Color song). He did not create a definite article-less version of The Ghost of You, which after noticing this, I wanted to make Ghost of You into. Ss112 11:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: By the way, is there a guideline or policy that explicitly states redirects should not be moved to other titles? If there is, please link me to it. Because redirects are moved out of the way all the time by editors creating articles for said topics but not wanting to expand the redirect another editor started, and that's accepted, as admins do it themselves, so how is this different? Ss112 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving redirect pages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:05, 17 March 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 04:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shnoogums → Nickname  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not used in target article, not sure why we need this example as a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G1. According to this [[1]], Shnoogums does not mean nickname. It is an insult. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is what is intended by patent nonsense, so I don't think G1 applies. Hog Farm (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Delete. According to this [[2]], Shnoogums does not mean nickname. It is an insult. Also, in the past 3.5 years, this redirect only got 32 pageviews. That is around 9 pageviews per year. Also the article does not mention the redirect in any way whatsoever. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing about "Shnoogums" at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 17 March 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 04:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• John Brown's Tractor → John Brown's Body  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A Google search verifies this song exists, but it is not mentioned at the target article and probably shouldn't - There are many parodies of this song (which shares a tune with the Battle Hymn of the Republic). Hog Farm (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There must be dozens of parodies not worth mentioning in the article, and this looks like one of them. Narky Blert (talk) 11:19, 17 March 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brent Kavanaugh → Brett Kavanaugh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No evidence subject ever went by the name Brent. Hog Farm (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as {{R from misspelling}} / {{R from incorrect name}}. Brent and Brett are both relatively common names that are easily confused, especially aurally. There are examples of Brent Kavanaugh in the "wild", including: jdnews.com, wgme.com, and fox61.com. -- Tavix ^(talk) 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix' research. Narky Blert (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the above. Even Stanford University has made this mistake. BD2412 T 14:29, 17 March 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 04:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown vs. → Brown v. Board of Education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Could refer to any number of cases in which the plaintiff is named Brown. Ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Incomplete, and hopelessly ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm tempted to say that any lawyer who sees "Brown vs." would jump up and yell "Board!" as if answering a Jeopardy! question, but the search box already answers the question this way when you start typing this, so, delete. BD2412 T 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only in USA. The 14th Amendment is an irrelevant legal curiosity in all other countries. Narky Blert (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per R3. Like what BD2412 said, the search box already would have the real article listed, making this an implausible typo. Also ambiguous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, R3 only applies to recently created redirects and this one has been around since 2006‎. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 17 March 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 delete. SQL^{Query me!} 02:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G3. _signed, OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Storm of Ram Ranch → Toy Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Vandalism/spam, given the content of the user's previous edits to Toy Story I don't want to find out what this means Hb1290 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obvious vandalism. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this is an obvious case of WP:G3 and was a leftover from reversing a page move that completely changed the content of target article. I will tag this.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to tag it since the redirect was protected so can someone either tag or simply delete the article since it should be completely uncontroversial?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3. @Sjones23: apologies for the notification on your talkpage, I was using Twinkle and it recognised you as the creator. Hb1290 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per 69.157.252.96. It is not just that it changed the content, it led to Toy Story having full protection so only admins can edit it at the time of this comment. I just edited the talk page of the user who protected the article to ask him if he could unprotect it since RadiationPlayers, the user who vandalized the article, is indef blocked now for it. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:02, 17 March 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.