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 Blood Harmony. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blood harmony → Family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I am thinking we should be redirecting this to Blood Harmony. The current redirect is not associated with any content on the family page, but presumably relates to this revision where it seems to be derived from a 2012 book From Grave to Cradle to Now—I don't know that this is enough to warrant the redirect. Thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Blood Harmony per nom. The psychological usage does not appear to have caught on; we have no article on the book itself or its author from which this usage of the term is derived. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 19 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Integrally closed domain. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Integrally closed ring → Integral element  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is probably more helpful if retargeted to Integrally closed domain (the other, more general meaning I can see from a Scholar search appears to be the one described in the "Normal rings" section of that article). 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at Talk:Integrally closed domain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Integrally closed domain, as the terms are synonymous. 2601:647:5800:4D2:AD3F:A018:EA26:6861 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the IPv6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 21 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Invisible Man (1933film) → The Invisible Man (1933 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Outlaw (2007film) → Outlaw (2007 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Resistance (2011film) → Resistance (2011 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Summer (2011film) → Summer (2011 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Size Zero 2015film → Size Zero  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Penalty(2019film) → Penalty (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects were left over from moves to the correctly spaced titles of their respective pages, and haven't gotten very many pageviews since July 2015 (other than small spikes in 2021 and from when they were first created for some of them, the latter of which date back to after that month). I'm thinking we should delete those unless someone can provide a justification or alternative course of action. Also, I didn't nominate 2 States (2014film) or Eiffel (2021film) because they still seem to be getting a decent number of pageviews per year (and we should wait until at least 2023 to see if they're going down). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all No point in keeping them now that someone has bothered to gather them up for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Classic WP:RDAB issue. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above/WP:RDAB. TartarTorte 15:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. Jontesta (talk) 03:24, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering) → Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995#Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible redirect. I don't see anyone type "Legends Card Checklist(Magic: The Gathering)" into a search bar. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The version with proper spacing between the title and the disambiguator, Legends Card Checklist (Magic: The Gathering), does not exist and has never existed.. Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:RDAB as it has no space between the disambiguation and the title. We can always create the correct version later. Page history is just WP:CRUFT. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausibly malformed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Legends Card Checklist (Magic: The Gathering) without redirect as the page has significant edit history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a checklist at the target, but the pre-BLAR content has it. Restore and AfD. If there is no mergeable content, it can be deleted. Jay 💬 02:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AfD per Jay. Content seems significant enough for restoring the article. I would also support Crouch, Swale's proposal but the checklist doesn't appear at the target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article existed for just over a day in 2007. When I look at it, it strikes me as being deep inside WP:FAN territory. Could anyone conceivably argue for its restoration? I don't think so, but just in case, I've asked at the Magic: The Gathering wikiproject. – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala, the last post on that WikiProject’s talkpage was over two years ago and no one responded to it. I we should ask a different WikiProject. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this was a BLAR, There doesn't appear to be any actual interest in retaining the previous content as an article, and frankly there's no chance of it surviving AfD. It'd be simpler to just delete rather than creating process for process's sake. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible search term. Jontesta (talk) 03:23, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 23:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberation of Lysychansk → Battle of Lysychansk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

POV redirect. russia has liberated nothing in Ukraine and we should remove anything that implies it has. Note that the target article does not state anything about some kind of popular name for the event used in Russia or something like that. It's a made-up POV name with no encyclopedic purposes. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The title implies that Lysychansk belongs to Russia, part of a body of propaganda implicated in incitement to genocide. —Michael Z. 21:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a commonly used term and redirects should be made to guide the reader into a more correct name per WP:RNEUTRAL. [1] Roostery123 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name is not used by reliable sources, except speculatively for a possible liberation of Lysychansk (e.g., “However, Haidai hinted at the imminent liberation of Lysychansk in a post on his Facebook page.”), which would be a different subject.  —Michael Z. 17:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Most results there do not talk about the russian takeover of the city. Super Ψ Dro 20:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mzajac, as it's currently a confusing redirect that doesn't lead what readers will be expecting to find, i.e. the city's recapture by Ukraine. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 11:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomboy atonality → Post-tonal music theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #5 (makes no sense). See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Femboy atonality. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the previous RfD, it's a neologism WP:MADEUP by the page creator. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete. There is literally NO such thing as "tomboy atonality" in music. The internet should be free of misinformation that could plant false ideas into citizen's minds, and by casting the "delete" vote I am improving society.

Since I hear this is habitual... if this continues happening, I'd even recommend banning the user from the site. Flora Wilshire (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (User was blocked under WP:SOCK) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A neologism with no usage outside one person's blog. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. 2601:647:5800:4D2:AD3F:A018:EA26:6861 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 List of star systems within 35–40 light-years. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• HD 28343 → List of stars in Taurus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This star is not mentioned in the list, possibly due to extreme lack of notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of star systems within 35–40 light-years: close but not in the top 10 or anything, red dwarf, flare star, moderately bright for a red dwarf, nothing exceptional. Quite a lot of research mentions, generally in nearby red dwarf samples of a few dozen or more. Lithopsian (talk) 17:10, 13 November 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, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of star systems within 35–40 light-years, where it's listed as Gliese 169. That should be retargeted as well. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:47, 21 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Coaster. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Coasters → The Coasters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wondering if this shouldn't be retargeted to Coaster, as other entries could be referred to by the plural, or if it should remain as a WP:DIFFPLURAL, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the DAB at Coaster, I don't think that there is a primary topic for the plural specifically here, and the DAB is therefore a more useful target. 193.37.240.120 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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! 04:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chesse → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is also a plausible misspelling of Cheese. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an obsolete/alternative spelling. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mdewman6 and Wiktionary. As wikt:chesse can attest, it is indeed an obsolete spelling of "chess." Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Google search results show that cheese is the topic people are most likely searching for. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a genuine alternate term is more important in an encyclopedic context than a misspelling. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per SnowFire though Google does suggest the food may be common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 06:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• John Wayne Gayce → John Wayne Gacy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete; highly improbable misspelling with minimal page views. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I would consider it to be a fairly plausible phonetic spelling of the name. Tevildo (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This misspelling actually comes up much more often than I expected, including in some (non-English) reliable sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:48, 20 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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! 00:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• R. H. Anderson → Robert Henry Anderson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While this is a standard author abbreviation for plants, this usage doesn't seem to be the primary topic, with Richard H. Anderson (general) (commonly known as R. H. Anderson) having just as good a claim to primacy. I'm not sure what the best option for handling this will be. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deemed the redirect is not appropriate, perhaps a note on the Richard H. Anderson (general) page something like "For the botanist, see Robert Henry Anderson (known as R. H. Anderson)" would be acceptable. DivermanAU (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thinking out loud here, according to the current target, R.H.Anderson (no spaces) is the botanical author abbreviation, for which there is a separate redirect. Is the general the primary topic among all other R. H. Andersons? Perhaps, but there are several other possibilities at Anderson (surname)#R and the disambiguation pages linked there, including Robert H. Anderson. While most encompassing, targeting that section would make it very difficult for users to find what they seek. While uncommon, perhaps the best solution here is to disambiguate at this title. Regardless, if this is redirected to a specific person, it seems like we need a hatnote to a more encompassing target to disambiguate the others, whether it be the surname page section or perhaps R. H. Anderson (disambiguation). Mdewman6 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I went through the possibilities at Anderson (surname)#R and here is the list:
  • Robert Henry Anderson, botanist
  • Richard H. Anderson (general)
  • Robert H. Anderson, American Civil War veteran
  • Robert Harmen Anderson or Rob Anderson (politician)
  • Robert H. Anderson (politician)
  • Richard H. Anderson, a redirect to Richard Anderson (disambiguation)
  • Richard H. Anderson (pilot)
  • Richard H. Anderson (businessman)

None of them except the botanist, have the name with initials mentioned in their article. A Google search for "R. H. Anderson" mexican-american war does point to the General. Regardless of whether there is support for the nomination, I would agree with DivermanAU for the hatnote suggestion, followed by a reverse hatnote at the botanist. Jay 💬 07:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we really need to create a dab at this title, or would a hatnote be enough as suggested above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate There is a lot of people with similar notabilities. It would be safe to just disambiguate. Roostery123 (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not entirely clear if disambiguation is truly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate with drafted dab below the redirect (Thanks Jay for putting together the list). Formally !voting after my comment above, since no better solution has emerged. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).