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) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Colville Ridge → Tonga Trench  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Colville Ridge seems quite a bit south of Tonga Trench, compare [1] [2]. It is not properly discussed in the article. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these articles is that sometimes the Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone is often split into a northern and a southern sector in a way that creates confusion and isn't geologically very meaningful. The redirects are pointing from names associated with the southern sector to articles titled from the northern sector. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally I think we should just have a stub about this one (and Havre Trough below). —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to avoid potential confusion and encourage article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 14 May 2022 (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) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Havre Trough → Tonga Trench  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Havre Trough seems quite a bit south of Tonga Trench, compare [3] [4]. It is not properly discussed in the article. —Kusma (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these articles is that sometimes the Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone is often split into a northern and a southern sector in a way that creates confusion and isn't geologically very meaningful. The redirects are pointing from names associated with the southern sector to articles titled from the northern sector. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally I think we should just have a stub about this one (and Colville Ridge above). —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to avoid potential confusion and encourage article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 14 May 2022 (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 My Growing Pains which resolves the "not mentioned" concern. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Find the Saltine → Scrubs (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. There was an article at this title for three days in 2008 prior to being WP:BLAR-ed, but the content doesn't seem like it would survive a WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Too trivial to even bother an AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to My Growing Pains. Jay (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to My Growing Pains where the bit is mentioned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 14 May 2022 (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 no consensus to delete. Given no support for the status quo, I will retarget to bullet-shooting crossbow as the most supported alternative. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Prodd → Crossbow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, though the word "prod" is. All Most mentions of "Prodd" on Wikipedia seem to refer to the name of various fictional characters. Steel1943 (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated rationale after realizing I was not accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a joke, or an accidental mis-spelilng of the word "prod". Delete. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a list of fictional characters with the surname Prodd, as they appear in other articles. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering none of the aforementioned characters have articles, it would probably be better to delete this redirect so that Wikipedia's search function can provide potentially better assistance, considering that there are more mentions of "Prodd" in Wikipedia's articles other than just fictional characters. Steel1943 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and let the search engine guide readers to what they're looking for. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. This looks like a misspelling for "prod" (the bow component of a crossbow), but the OED gives "prodd" (in exactly this spelling, with quotations including from 1960) as referring to a bullet-shooting crossbow (I've just added a mention of this synonym to the article). So this is going to be a good target. I'm wondering about other uses though: not the various fictional characters (correct me if I'm wrong, but from a quick skim of the search results I don't notice any substantial subtopics that would be worth providing navigation for), but potentially other crossbow-related meanings. The 1913 edition of Webster's say "prodd" refers to a light kind of crossbow (which I reckon may be the same as the bullet-shooting crossbow above: apparently, the thing wasn't used for anything other than hunting). I'm not seeing such an entry in the newer online edition of that dictionary [5] (though I don't think I can access the unabridged version). – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to bullet-shooting crossbow as an alternate name per Uanfala. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 30 April 2022 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Londongrad → Russian money in London  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target had been Russians in the United Kingdom, recently changed to target this new article. Term is related/mentioned in both; not sure which is a better target. MB 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While this can refer to both financial issues in London specifically as well as in the United Kingdom in general, the term appears to me to be more centered about the particular city, examples as such in the news media including this article here from The Economist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target to Londongrad (disambiguation) per WP:XY. Though not in the "X and/or Y" format, there is still no way " to determine which topic a reader is searching for" with "Londongrad". --NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Back in 2013 there was a clear primary topic. But the 2014 disambiguation and things that didn't exist in 2013 lead me to agree with NotReallySoroka. On the weight argument, I note that I put "Londongrad" into Google Scholar, and surprisingly, a paper on the television series (doi:10.1080/19409419.2017.1323182) was the first result. So again I agree with NotReallySoroka on there not really being a clear single target for a worldwide readership. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In my opinion this is the primary topic and common meaning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 30 April 2022 (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 Power Broker (character). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation → Power Broker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target is a dab page that doesn't mention anything about wrestling, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Middling-weak retarget to Power Broker (character), which mentions this fictional entity. Middling-weak (with second choice delete) because the mentions are fairly brief, and, if that article had a less bloated plot summary, it's not clear to me it would be mentioned at all. (I don't mean "it's not clear to me" as a polite way to say "I don't think that"; I genuinely can't tell, from the way the article is written, how significant this element is in-universe. 20 of the article's 22 references are primary, and it contains Fandom-y writing like Very little is known about the second version of the Power Broker other than he wears a battle suit and can project bolts of energy from his hands. This new Power Broker has apparently taken over Power Broker, Inc. This makes it an imperfect reference point to judge this redirect's appropriateness.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been minimal participation (and to close out the March 26th discussion page) and I'm sure we can reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Tamzin, since there is a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2022 (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) 22:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Triangulare → Os triangulare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ligamentum triangulare and Spatium axillare triangulare appear to be similar topics (triangular anatomical parts) as the current topic, and I didn't see that the term is used without the preceding qualifier. Numerous in title uses in species names. Nothing against current target if those more knowledgeable of the topic know that it is used primarily without a qualifier to refer to the bones. Otherwise, might be better to delete or point to Wiktionary; SIA or dab could work, but not sure how appropriate it is as a WP:PARTIAL. Ost (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to set index of species; it will then reject the current usage. A link ot wiktionary can provide context on "triangulare"; someone can add English language descendants there for the anatomical uses fround in English. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020) for a well-attended discussion relating to specific epithets on DAB pages (conclusion: they don't belong there). Narky Blert (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why it should be a set index (not a disambiguation page) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at both mentioned triangulare pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to facilitate uninhibited search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fascismo → Fascism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think as per WP:RLOTE, this redirect should be retargetted to Italian fascism. Veverve (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After checking on the other WP versions of the Fascism article, the word 'fascismo' is used to designate 'fascism' in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Interlingua, Guinean, Mirandese, and Venetian. Now, I do not really know what to suggest, any comment is welcome. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would think the big question now is: Is this word used frequently enough in English text where it could possibly be considered a loan word? Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps Fascism_(disambiguation)? This is the result [6] when you type "fascismo" in the Cambridge English Dictionary, I think sending to the disambiguation page would be going a similar route. ObsidianPotato (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:FORRED per the nom's original comment, as its intent was clearly to redirect to the "fascism" article and it should be judged as such. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think WP:RLOTE means this has to be deleted. Fascism is certainly associated with Italy as where the "modern" concept originated. A7V2 (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2022 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Para-fascism → Fascism#International impact of the Great Depression and the buildup to World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Parafascism → Fascism#Para-fascism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention at the target, so I recommend deletion. Also, possibly WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually, the term "para-fascism" is mentioned twice in the current article, therefore the redirects are perfectly okay and should not be deleted. However, the redirects should be changed to both point to the same target #Para-fascism, and we should add an {{anchor}} to let that point to the best location within the article. Back in 2009/2010, when the two redirects were created, the article even had a long and sourced section named "Para-fascism" ([7]). I haven't tracked where that content has been moved to; if it was deleted it might be useful to readd it in some form (but that's a topic possibly to be discussed in normal article development on the article's talk page, not at RfD). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 30 April 2022 (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 only the nominated redirect, as it is the one that was properly tagged and no one seemed to notice even after two relists. Please nominate those separately. ✗plicit 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkburr → Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#TSR 2016 – Monster Manual II (1983)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target or anywhere on Wikipedia's article space. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These other redirects created at the same time by the same creator may also be deleted:
  • Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Agathion (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Northern bear (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Giant bee (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Behemoth (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Bloodthorn (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Bookworm (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Bowler (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Cat (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Giant catfish (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Cave cricket (Dungeons & Dragons)
  • Cave moray
• Jay (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barkburr is not mentioned on Wikipedia, though it is one of the Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, but most of the others found by Jay are mentioned on Wikipedia at the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters and should be redirected there rather than deleted. Daranios (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all The monster lists are WP:GAMEGUIDE unencyclopedic content in the purest sense of the term, so even if these redirects had their target changed, it would not help anyone, just prompt an identical discussion when the content there is inevitably deleted as gamecruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom., per the lack of mention at the target, and per Zxcvbnm. Veverve (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A delete-all opinion isn't valid because the other redirects haven't been tagged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cubit (currency) → Battlestar Galactica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Cubit (Twelve Colonies) → Battlestar Galactica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Battlestar Galactica Cubit → Battlestar Galactica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly surprisingly, the word "cubit" is nowhere in the target article. In fact, at this point, it seems the only Battlestar Galatic-related article which mentions "cubit" is in the episode description for the 7th episode of Caprica. It also seems as though this subject may have been mentioned on Twelve Colonies when it was an article, but it the aforementioned article was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (2nd nomination). Anyways, with all this being said, one of these redirects, Cubit (currency), was WP:BLAR-ed in response to a WP:PROD. So, either "Restore Cubit (currency) and send to WP:AFD, then retarget the other redirects to Cubit (currency)" or "Delete all" due to there not being any information in the target article or any other articles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to Caprica, where it is mentioned, and can be inferred as being currency. Caprica is a BSG franchise TV show set in the 12 Colonies, so these redirects all would work. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all As plotcruft, with disambiguations that are not even correct. However, far too plotcrufty to remain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2022 (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. ✗plicit 12:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MetaCorp Expressways → Template:MetaCorp Expressways and Highway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

seemingly unnecessary XNR, Templatespace ineligible for CSD Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G6 as a page created in error. The template's creator moved it into the correct namespace one minute after creating it. - Eureka Lott 14:33, 30 April 2022 (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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:INSULT → Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This page should be re-targeted to Wikipedia:No personal attacks to match the letter-case Wikipedia:Insult. Also, as an example, the link to the redirect at Talk:Thomas Schirrmacher#Sources: step by step can be construed as a mis-link. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per consistency. Veverve (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to match sister redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:05, 2 May 2022 (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spenard Builders Supply → ProBuild  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

So, I get it, SBS was owned by ProBuild for a period of time, but ProBuild was bought up by Builders FirstSource and no longer exists. SBS is not mentioned at all in either article. I think it would be possible to write an actual article on SBS and it's storied history is the main supplier of lumber and other building materials for a large portion of Alaska's history. I'd rather it was a redlink until such time as an article is created, as the redirect implies we already cover the subject, which we clearly do not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added a sentence or two in ProBuild. Although this could be an article, better to have minimal coverage than a redlink for now. MB 15:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:44, 30 April 2022 (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! 06:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrubs music → List of Scrubs soundtracks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The title of this redirect could be ambiguous. Someone may search this term as worded, hoping to find Scrubbing (audio) or No Scrubs. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's not a hugely plausible search term, but I don't see how this could refer to the other two articles mentioned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tamzin. Although not a hugely likely search term I'm also not convinced it is ambiguous with the other two articles. A7V2 (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or DABify per nom. Veverve (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the proposed argument is rather implausible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ebony.(Serial). → Ebony (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unclear how/why the use of a period before and after what appears to be a disambiguator make this redirect a plausible search term. I looked through some third party sources, and am not seeing where this spelling/punctuation variation is in use. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See WP:POFR: "Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases." It's found in ISSN/OCLC databases and having the redirect tagged as a type enables cleanup. It's currently used twice on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magazines/Magazines_cited_by_Wikipedia/E1). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Headbomb: Being somewhat familiar with your work, I have a question for you: Could you either tag the template with a WP:RCAT template to reflect this, or possibly create a new category/template combination that could be used for this? The current RCAT template on the redirect, {{R from misspelling}} is rather erroneous/insufficient. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose something like {{R from database garbage}} could be made, but {{R from typo}} is effectively what this is. If you have a better name than 'database garbage', it could be used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  {{R from codified database entry name}} ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per above discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Headbomb. If it appears in reliable sources, then it's obviously helpful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 8 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• COAB → Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't think anyone would refer to the Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda as "COAB". Some expansions of the acronym COAB are listed here. Peter Ormond 💬 04:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at the target and not a common abbreviation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 05:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Twin-island state → Antigua and Barbuda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Twin-island state" can also mean Trinidad and Tobago or Saint Kitts and Nevis or São Tomé and Príncipe. Peter Ormond 💬 04:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no mention of this expression anywhere to refer to something precisely, apart from here to refer to Trinidad and Tobago. Veverve (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while I frequently see it in reference to TT, it could apply to any of these. Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2022 (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 Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NDA → Wikipedia:No disclaimers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Propose redirect to Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information

Reason: NDA stands for "non-disclosure agreement" which people looking for information on the NDAs required to, say, become a CheckUser or Oversighter (Suppressor) are probably going to use. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 21:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget agree with nominator. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom although a hatnote in the new target article wouldn't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (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.