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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted before, back in 2008, but this time it targets Cookbook instead of Wikipedia:Cookbook. Back then, it was decided that the Wikibooks' Cookbook was the most likely meaning, but would be an improper XNR from mainspace to link directly to it. I agree with that assessment and feel deletion is appropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 15 March 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 Wrong forum. Please comment at the new move discussion at Talk:UK Singles Chart (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Official Singles Chart → UK Singles Chart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should be the other way around; the lead section even states that Official Singles Chart is the current name of the chart. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the wrong forum to request page moves. You want WP:RM, not RFD. - Eureka Lott 08:29, 15 March 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kasar → Qasar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There's a Turkish cheese called kaşar, which is currently described in the article Kasseri (rightly or wrongly). It is difficult to find, however, as a search for kasar gets redirected to Qasar, apparently on the basis that Qasar is "also spelled Hasar or Khasar" (no mention of Kasar per se, mind). I propose to replace the redir with a dab pointing to both pages. (I initially thought of just adding hatnotes, but I don't think 'kasar' should direct to 'Qasar' in the first place.) Admittedly the redir is quite old (since 2006), but not much seems to link to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per nom. The term is well attested as an alternative spelling for Qasar, but there are other articles with the name and I don't see a primary topic. A draft dab page is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify using Uanfala's helpful draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:59, 18 March 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 Cement#Setting, hardening and curing. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wet cement → Concrete  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Would this be better targeting Cement? Although "wet cement" is used to refer to cement derived products (Concrete, Mortar, Cement render etc) it's pretty ambiguous in that use, and search results are split between that usage, the name of a shade of grey and safety information about the highly caustic nature of wet cement. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cement#Setting,_hardening_and_curing which I think describes wet cement's role in the curing process best to our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and Lenticel. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 22 March 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 Tire, İzmir. Dominicmgm made his comment before the place in Turkey was floated as a target, Chidgk1's argument is based on WP:FORRED but is outnumbered by other editors who consider a redirect to be appropriate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Theira → Tire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:RLOTE. No specific connection between tyres and latinised greek. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing particularly Greek about tyres. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Of course there is nothing Greek about tires. The page was meant to direct to Tire, İzmir. Can't explain why it did not. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tire, İzmir although I suggest someone from the region find a cited mention of the rename since I can't read Turkish. List_of_renamed_cities,_towns_and_regions_in_Turkey#İzmir_Province states that this is a former name for the district. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not a native speaker of Turkish but if I understand right according to https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1290613 it means Thrace. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It has nothing to do with Thrace nor Turkish. 'Theira' is the modern Greek name of Tire near Smyrna/Izmir. The Turkish for 'Thrace' is 'Trakya'. The link you refer to gives a paretymology of Thrace from 'Theiris' or 'Thira' from a 1798 source. I suggest rather you search for the term in Greek: Θείρα. Constantine ✍ 20:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You obviously know more about this than I do as I cannot read Greek or Latin. I am curious - how do you know the etymology in the 2020 paper I linked to is a false etymology? Because the 2020 paper seems to be talking about an old source written in Greek whereas you have linked to a Latin book. I changed my opinion above to "delete" as it does not seem to be an English word. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tire, İzmir (that's the Greek name of the place). If I'm not mistaken, the Turkish paper cited above quotes an 1880 text which posits Theira as a hypothetical intermediate step in the derivation of the name for Thrace from Theiras, the Greek name of the biblical figure of Tiras. This is obviously not a plausible etymology, but that's beside the point – we don't do redirects for words representing the stages of an etymological derivation, even when they're mentioned in the article. – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 16 March 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 Insurance. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninsured → Health insurance coverage in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This seems like the wrong place to link this redirect SecretName101 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the current target is less than ideal, it does seems bit Americentric - lots of places use insurance based healthcare. Not really sure what to do with this though, retarget to the main page on Insurance perhaps? This could be a plausible search term for people looking for all kinds of things related to insurance, the big ones that immediately spring to mind are Uninsured drivers or Health insurance. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts exactly. SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak retarget to Insurance as R from antonym. It's not a perfect antonym hence a weak retarget.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Insurance, add Uninsured "look from" at the bottom of Insurance (disambiguation). Delete is also an option, since there is no article for Unregistered and that would get to multiple options. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Insurance as above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:44, 18 March 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. creator supports deletion AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:KOAT → User:KingOfAllThings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Vanity page. While a CNR from project space to userspace can occasionally be useful—e.g., when pointing to essays—this is neither helpful nor useful to the project, its readers or other editors. ——Serial 09:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created this and I don't think it was a wise decision. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of your vote, I have tagged for G7 speedy. For future reference, @KingOfAllThings: if you think that a page you created should be deleted, and no one else has contributed to it substantially, you can tag it with {{db-g7}} (or {{db-u1}} if it's in your userspace). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 03:45, 15 March 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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect from article space to project space Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bad XNR. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Retarget to Notability in the English Wikipedia, which explains the concept and links to the Wikipedia policy. I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term, but I think this is a better target and will guide anyone linking the policy without the prefix to the right place. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The concept of "Notability" does not only exist on Wikipedia. 053pvr (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cross-space, and concur with 053pvr. People savvy enough to be looking for this are probably savvy enough to just use a WP: prefix. – 2pou (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speed delete (R2) (tagged) with a nice reminder to the nom that if something meets an obvious CSD; they shouldn't list it at TFD but WP:BOLDLY tag it as appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't meet R2 because it's from mainspace to projectspace. Untagged. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case still delete as an unhelpful one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 22 March 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 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn → Hillary Clinton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling (misspelling of a long, rarely-used name). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stupidly unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 9 Page views in the last year indicate this is not a common or plausible misspelling. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely implausible. 053pvr (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless typo redirect; no reason to delete. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Highly unlikely, especially since if typed in search box the correctly spelled link is likely to be apparent after (at most) the first 15 characters. I personally rather doubt most will include her middle name in a search anyway. General Ization ^Talk 02:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? A significant portion of readers use the URL bar rather than the search bar to search or don't click on search suggestions. How does your rationale indicate that deleting this redirect is beneficial to the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was not my "rationale," it was an observation. I think the misspelling is highly unlikely, and I see no point in keeping a redirect that has only been used 9 times in a year. I don't really think I needed to justify my opinion on the question. General Ization ^Talk 00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no point in deleting a redirect if it is unambiguous and it helps readers. When I was referring to your rationale I wasn't just referring to your "observation", I was referring to your entire argument. How has anything you've said indicate that deleting this redirect is beneficial to the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely misspelling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Simple transposition error. I don't think we should encourage creating things like this, but it'll take readers to the correct destination and isn't ambiguous or harmful. Hog Farm _Talk 14:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncommon misspelling. Not plausible nor helpful enough to be worth keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:58, 22 March 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 → Pi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Too many digits to be a reasonable search term. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? You're just proposing this now to generate some Pi-day discussion maybe? I mean, it's obviously useless, but also harmless; why waste time talking about it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dicklyon. (And actually, it looks like the redirect is frequently used, probably through external links.) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't suggest keep. Just suggested that it's a waste of our time to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your argument (which is what per means after all, it doesn't just mean "he said keep so I say keep"), and am adding on that the redirect is actually used. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 08:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dicklyon and J947. It's unambiguous and helpful, like all these other pi-digit redirects out there. It doesn't even come close to 100 digits. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is undoubtedly a string of digits of Pi that would exceed anything that makes sense for a redirect, but this is short enough to fall short of being excessive. BD2412 T 05:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It helps in this case that it terminates after 32 digits, which is typical for a quadruple-precision floating-point format system. (The next digit, a 0, is omitted.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaundryPizza03, a snowball clause is not a speedy keep closure. Also, see this note: Though the two may seem similar, closes under the snowball clause should never be closed as "speedy keep.". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per above. 150 page views in the last year is sufficient to show this is a plausible search term. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This term is mentioned at the target, and its plausible and useful. Old Naval Rooftops, I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This redirect has been used in a lot of links, see "What links here". MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 12:51, 15 March 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 🔫 → Emoji#Controversial emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 🍆 → Emoji#Controversial emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• 🍑 → Emoji#Controversial emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

On Wikipedia, emoji are supposed to redirect to their intended meaning. 053pvr (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These emoji have multiple meanings, and they redirect where the multiple meanings are discussed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you type in one of these emoji into the search bar, you would not want to be redirected to a page about a controversy involving the emoji, you would want to go to the actual meaning of that emoji. 053pvr (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with that is the eggplant emoji, for example, is rarely used to mean eggplant. In deference to the meaning most likely meant, redirecting to the place that explains the various meanings is a much better solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the "actual" meaning of these emojis? The one that they were intended to have or the one people actually use them for? Both would be valid targets. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These emojis are ambiguous due to the controversies surrounding them, so redirecting to a page explaining the controversy seems like the best option. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Say what? – I had no idea that we had emoji as article titles – or that emojis where in Unicode for that matter. I guess I just don't fit in the modern age. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hardly see anyone using the eggplant and peach emojis for anything other than the penis and buttocks respectively. And the water pistol emoji was quite infamous in the gun control debates of the 2010s. Dominicmgm (talk) 09:54, 14 March 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 keep. I do not see a valid rationale for deletion. Some users make a point that this could be made into an article; in which case they make the wise suggestion that the redirect should be consequently expanded instead of being deleted... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Steam oven → Oven  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I suggest deleting this redirect since the only page using it is the Oven page, which is also the target. It is a loop. Very confusing. Ohnoplease (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep If someone searches "Steam oven" in the search box, they will be taken straight to "Oven", which is probably what they are looking for. This redirect is not a circular redirect, because "Oven" does not redirect back to "Steam oven". The issue is the link on "Oven" which can be removed with a single edit. 053pvr (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've removed the link on oven page. Ohnoplease (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close There is no issue with this redirect itself. 053pvr (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the concept of a steam oven is interesting enough to support its own article and can be reliably sourced, write one. BD2412 T 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we need a Steam oven article, given that my wife is about to drop a lot of money on one for our new kitchen. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really sure about this one. While it does make sense for this to target Oven as a variant of that appliance there isn't really any content about steam ovens in the target. Steaming might also be suitable target, and I can see the WP:Redlink argument. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 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 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:STEPHENKING → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stephen King  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no reason why an MfD from a decade ago would need a recently-created shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur fully with nom. Would not help readers looking for a Stephen King wikiproject. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in lieu of a better target. The redirect in my opinion would help those looking for a Stephen King WikiProject. The MfD clearly informs that there is no longer any Stephen King WikiProject, which is obviously of great help to those looking for a Stephen King WikiProject. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: If we wanted to keep this to help people searching for a Wikiproject would this not be better targeting a related existent/active wikiproject? Something like WikiProject Books, WikiProject Literature, or the writers and authors section of WikiProject Biography all seem like they would be much more useful targets than an MFD discussion from a decade ago. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping this target would illustrate to people who search this up that there is no longer a Steven King WikiProject. The other targets that you mention wouldn't do that. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as silly and malformed. If, as J947 suggests, there's a use in having a redirect to an MfD discussion, it shouldn't be this ALLCAPS monstrosity, should it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the format of a standard shortcut to a WikiProject. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 08:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all reasons noted above. We don't want to suggest that we have a project page, of any kind, about Stephen King when we don't. The fact that it's formatted as a Wikiproject shortcut makes the argument for deletion much stronger. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't want to suggest that we have a project page, of any kind, about Stephen King when we don't: I'm not sure how this does suggest we have one? (I doubt that people are completely fooled by the mere existence of a redirect.) In fact, it indicates that we used to have a project page based on Stephen King but now we don't – which is what we want to inform those looking for some sort of project page about Stephen King. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It does suggests that we have a Stephen King policy page, because if someone sees the link, it will appear blue, telling them that there is a genuinely page, as opposed to appearing red, clearly telling them that there is no page. The redness of the link is all people need to know, and clicking the blue link to the MfD is simply wasting time for most people. The rare person who does want to know can click the red link, see the deletion log, which leads to this discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The main use case for this redirect is not from links but rather from people searching this up looking for a WikiProject about Stephen King. Barely any places link to this redirect. Also, a person searching up WP:STEPHENKING if this redirect is deleted will not see that the redirect has been deleted because of how the search function works. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unhelpful and pointless shortcut. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:23, 22 March 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 First impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Trump counsel and congressional defense team. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Herschmann → Executive Office appointments by Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion. Target page does not mention Herschmann, nor could I find a point in the page history where it did. I think that falls under rationale #10 on the criteria page. Enyavar (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to First impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which does mention Herschmann. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to First impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Trump counsel and congressional defense team, this is the name of a lawyer who represented trump during his impeachment trial. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101. 053pvr (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Herschmann is mentioned in two articles, both of which are easily accessible from the search page. In situations like this there should be a special dab-mention page to guide readers to content IMO, but currently that doesn't exist. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the possibility of an article (coverage) is on here? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that of the two impeachment trials this could target the first is the primary topic here. In the first impeachment trial he was an active member of Trump's defence team and actively represented him, for the second impeachment trial he released a statement saying he wasn't interested in representing trump. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have no idea how you guys in en-WP are linking a person to only their topmost public appearance instead of either not linking them blue at all ("not notable") or giving them their own short article ("notable"). Herschmann was still prominent in Trump's team up to 2021, e.g. in here, so he is not a mere extra in the 1st impeachment. --Enyavar (talk) 15:04, 14 March 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 First impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Trump counsel and congressional defense team. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jane Raskin → Executive Office appointments by Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion. Target page does not mention Raskin, ever since her appointment got deleted in this edit. Article currently says there has not been an official "Legal Advisor to the President" after 2017. --Enyavar (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to First impeachment trial of Donald Trump, which does mention Raskin. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to First impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Trump counsel and congressional defense team, this is the name of a lawyer who represented trump during his impeachment trial. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101. 053pvr (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have no idea how you guys in en-WP are linking a person to only their topmost public appearance instead of either not linking them blue at all ("not notable") or giving them their own short article ("notable"). Raskin was already defending Trump during Mueller's Russia probe, so she is not a mere extra in the 1st impeachment. --Enyavar (talk) 15:04, 14 March 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Heinrich Hitler → Heinz Hitler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Disambiguate? Searchers may be looking to find Heinrich Himmler's article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, I see the ambiguity but we always prioritise correct uses over misnomers. Such a dab page is an option but an unconventional one; I'm not entirely opposed to it but it likely falls afoul of guidelines. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hatnote is a better option but would also be rather odd. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hatnote to "Heinrich Himmler". "Heinz Hitler"'s full name is "Heinrich Hitler", so this redirect should point there. However because of his name's spelling similarity with "Heinrich Himmler", a hatnote would be appropriate. 053pvr (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is only one correct usage. Himmler and Hitler are not similar enough to even warrant a hatnote, in my opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with explanatory hatnote. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without hatnote. I don't think "Hitler" and "Himmler" are ambiguous enough with each other to warrant linking, and treating this as an WP:XY redirect of "Heinrich and Hitler" would result in a vague redirect that could target lots of places where these two people interact. The person who actually went by this name is the obvious target here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is SecretName101 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sans hatnote, per Tavix and anon. - Eureka Lott 00:50, 16 March 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.