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:CSD#G4. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nina M. Davies (Q1992876) → N. de Garis Davies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible --C o r t e x ^💬talk 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator in the previous discussion. I've tagged it for WP:G4 speedy deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:05, 2 February 2021 (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) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Belgic Oppidum → Braintree, Essex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Devil's Dyke, Hertfordshire notes in the first sentence of the Description section that "The area is marked as a "Belgic oppidum" on Ordnance Survey maps."; Roman sites in Great Britain#Essex lists "Belgic oppidum (Roman Braintree)", List of Roman place names in Britain#Settlement names also lists "Belgic oppidum" as referring to Braintree. Scheduled monuments in Maidstone describes Boughton Quarry camp as "...probably a major Belgic oppidum." linking the two words separately and the reference supporting Corinium at List of settlements in Illyria#Croatia is titled "Bagendon: a Belgic oppidum: a record of the excavations of 1954–56". Finally, Tom O'Connor (priest) contains the sentence "it [the Turoe stone] is part of a hitherto unrecognised royal sanctuary at the core of a Belgic-like oppidum defensive system of linear embankments....". Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to allow the searcher to more easily get results such as those Thryduulf mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly disambiguate given that there are mentions of both on Wikipedia though the one in Hertfordshire appears more common, see Pastscape otherwise delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify or delete. Having looked again at search results for this term it is clear that they are almost all referring to a Belgic oppidum, i.e. an oppidum (roughly meaning "town" or "main settlement") associated with the Belgae, rather than it being the name of a specific place. Redirecting to one example is not useful, and in the absence of any information about what differentiates a Belgic oppidum from one associated with any other group anywhere on Wikipedia the best we can do is either create a list of them or let search results do what they can. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2021 (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, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Naruto: Rise of a Hero → List of Naruto media#Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Naruto: Rise of a Ninja was mistakenly moved to Naruto: Rise of a Hero on May 11, 2007 ([1]), the move was immediately reverted but the redirect still exists. It's not a common mispronounciation of the actual title. Mika1h (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one-off mistake that was fixed in 20 minutes over a decade ago.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2021 (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 Cucoloris. This is without prejudice to any reorganisation of article content. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cookie cutter (lighting) → Gobo (lighting)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe Retarget to Cucoloris, which seems to be the correct article for lighting cookies? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "lighting cookies"! Love it! Agree REDIRECT to Cucoloris but better still, the latter (Cucoloris) could be 'corralled' into Gobo as a subset of that device, an article covering uses in theatre and photography, with the Cucoloris content now covering cinema - all disciplines which deal with issues of lighting and shadow-making. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (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) 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Flight 4951 → Bombardier CRJ700 series#CRJ700  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Delta Air Lines Flight 4951 → Bombardier CRJ700 series#Accidents and incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delta Air Lines Flight 4951 was a two-line stub article that, according to the edit history, was merged to what is now Bombardier CRJ700 series#Accidents and incidents in 2010 by Fnlayson. It was removed in 2014 by OhanaUnited citing WP:AIRCRASH.[2] According to the stub the plane was a CRJ900 so the relevant section to mention it in would be Bombardier CRJ700 series#CRJ900. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both these terms are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous with what? Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: Ambiguous with other occurrences of that flight number. Flight numbers (unlike aircraft registrations) are not unique identifiers. Delta DL 4951 flies every day from Charleston to Atlanta, and other airlines have a flight 4951. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically true, but when only one instance has a notable occurrence it's unambiguous from an encyclopaedic point of view, c.f. Flight 8, Flight 93, Flight 123, Flight 327, Flight 593, Flight 2120, any many others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will nominate those for RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no longer a mention at the target and I can't find evidence of a significant incident that would be article-worthy or otherwise a primary topic for this redirect. A Google search also yields Flight 4951 for other airlines, so there is evidently not much lasting coverage and this was perhaps the reason for the merge. If this were a significant event (as in the case of the redirects Thryduulf links), there would be a dedicated article or section with substantial content and the redirect would then be unambiguous, though that doesn't seem to be the case. ComplexRational (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (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. Not usefully explained at the target. Thryduulf explains the situation very well - this is a term that's used but not really in reliable sources, so we can't reasonably expect to provide good coverage of it at the moment. If said sourced coverage does appear in a general article, this would be reasonable to recreate to point at that. ~ mazca ^talk 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Living meme → Internet meme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Living meme" is not explained at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term roughly means "a living pop-culture celebrity, especially one with a distinctive style who is popular on the internet". There are a handful of instances on en.wp of the term used to describe specific people, the best by far being DJ Khaled#2016–2019: Major Key, Grateful and Father of Asahd where the second paragraph gets close to defining the term, but even if it did redirecting to one specific person would be misleading. Internet phenomenon or Celebrity would be a better target than current I think, but with no mention there they aren't a suitable target either. The best source on the internet I can immediately find is Urban Dictionary[3], the very definition of unreliable, so it's not something I expect content to be added about shortly, leading to delete as the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2021 (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 in the absence of any objection to the nomination. ~ mazca ^talk 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Acoustic systems → Loudspeaker enclosure  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search suggests that the use of the term of "acoustic system" is much broader than just loudspeakers. Could be redirected to Acoustic, but I suspect that most readers would be dissatisfied with that search result, and would thus lean toward deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 1 February 2021 (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. ƏXPLICIT 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sagar Sethi → Helen S. Mayberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10; "Sagar Sethi" refers to the V. Sagar Sethi Mental Health Research Award, which is briefly mentioned at the target, but IMO not to the level of depth such that a redirect is useful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too thin connection. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2021 (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. ƏXPLICIT 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gualmar → Walmart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Transcription of Walmart with an exaggerated Spanish accent, not a likely search term or a term with wide use in RS. I think that deletion is in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based on what I've found, I would say that it's actually plausible that this is something people will be searching for on Wikipedia (to find out what it means), however as we have no content about it any redirect would be misleading and/or confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (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. Enough of a justificaction has been provided to make the case for keeping the redirect, withdrawing this nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Justice and Communist Party → Social Justice Party (Somalia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be a viable translation of the party's Somali name, no relevant results in an internet or Google Scholar search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Communist Party of Social Justice as an "R from incorrect name" as this seems to be the only communist/justice political party we have an article on. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as an "R from incorrect name" based on the CIA factbook page found by Roman Kubanskiy below. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How is this not mentioned? It is mentioned in the list of Somali parties provided by the CIA. Here is that 1 Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only site that seems to call this the Justice and communist party is the CIA world factbook and a load of what appear to be mirror sites. The Somali electoral commission gives the English name of the party as the Social Justice Party, and the party itself uses the English name "social justice party" on it's social media (e.g. Facebook) so I'm not sure where the CIA got the name from. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I called it Social Justice Party as follows. And Justice and Communist Party is just a redirect to the true page, so as not to confuse the reader. By the way, it is noteworthy that the CIA called it communist, although it has social-democratic views. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the link provided by Roman Kubanskiy, I think that keeping the current redirect is likely appropriate, as it would appear to be a likely {{R from incorrect name}} (or possibly a former name). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 1 February 2021 (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:G6. The context is at Ikimonogakari (band), and this was the only edit left over after those moves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ikimono-gakari (temp) → Ikimonogakari  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For some reason, this was created by a bot with the summary "Fixing double redirect". Implausible. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (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:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (temp) → 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Leftover from (round-robin?) page moves, implausible and not more needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sounds about right. Can't recall the exact reason for it, but nuke it. Anything like this you spot that I created, just drop me a note and I'll tag it for a speedy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:13, 1 February 2021 (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 G6. I have merged the history to Darren Sammy Cricket Ground, which completes the round-robin page move. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daren Sammy Cricket Ground (temp) → Daren Sammy Cricket Ground  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Leftover from (round-robin?) page moves, implausible and not more needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This one has somewhat more substantial history than a typical page swap temp redirect, and perhaps should be moved somewhere to preserve edit history. BD2412 T 16:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible search term left over from a round robin page swap. This page does have a bit of history but it's all just moving and retargeting redirects, it's never had any article content. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably speedy as well. This one was due to new info on the spelling of Sammy's first name, per this related page move, and hence the stadium's name being corrected too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:08, 1 February 2021 (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 BD2412. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Epitome (temp) → Epitome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also speedy deleted. BD2412 T 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wow, thanks for responding to the partial nomination before I merge it. I suggest closing this nomination then. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (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 BD2412. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Colombians (temp) → Colombians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Leftovers from (round-robin?) page moves, implausible and not more needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest closing the nomination then. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (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 G1. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jsjhdhsnj → Air Italy S.p.A.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For some reason, this was the original name of the target page. Regardless, it's just nonsense and should be deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: G6 "pages unambiguously created in error". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not certain this was created in error - although why it was created at this title is baffling. It would qualify as R3 if it was recent but 2018 is definitely not recent. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G1 patent nonsense. No relation to the company as far as I can tell. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2021 (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 COPS (animated TV series)#Home Video and Episodes. Formally no consensus, implementing the uncontroversial correction of the section targeting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of C.O.P.S. Episodes → COPS (animated TV series)#Episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term and miscapitalization, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:PANDORA/the newly created WP:COMPLETELIST. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is a complete list of episodes at the title, the search term is plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody so there is no reason at all to delete this (incorrect capitalisation is not a reason to delete a redirect on its own unless it makes the redirect misleading, which is not the case here). Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD. Note to closer: if kept, this should target COPS (animated TV series)#Home Video and Episodes. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:06, 27 January 2021 (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, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kemp (Europeans cricketer) → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Killick (Europeans cricketer) → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Lonsdale (Europeans cricketer) → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (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.