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. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible and WP:UNNATURAL (how does "ki" become "nke"?). Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why, but this mistake is surprisingly common: [1][2] Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Ca's findings, a relatively common misspelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Ca's sources 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Attested error with surprising commonality, and this redirect gets consistent enough use to justify keeping. As for how "ki" becomes "nke"? Linguistics is fascinating! My best guess would be that it probably has to do with the commonality, or lack thereof, of the /ɪki/ phoneme cluster in English. How many English words can you think of with this cluster? Right now, I struggle to come up with any off the top of my head, other than "icky" (not saying there are none, but they aren't at the forefront of my mind). Now how many can you think of with /nki/ or /nkə/? Instantly, I can name binky, winky, thinky, drinky... childish words, perhaps, but they're there ready in my head. Basically, /ɪki/ isn't often natural English... which makes sense since it was borrowed from another language in the first place! /nki/ or /nkə/ might be a bit more easy to find, even if it may be coded as child-directed speech. Note that this is just a guess, and is mostly irrelevant to my !vote-- the fact that it gets used and can be found as an error extensively in the wild is much more to the point. Fieari (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Miencraft → Minecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible typo. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as an adjacent character transposition error, this sort of typo is quite plausible. Though this redirect was only created in 2019, so it's relatively new, being just barely pre-pandemic. This shows up quite readily on a basic websearch [3] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pageviews, which show that it has decent usage. Seems a plausible typo to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible typo. Or rather, just as plausible as every other way one could misspell it. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite a plausible typo according to its page views. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Over 110 views per year says that this is a useful redirect, making this a demonstrably plausible typo. I don't understand the crusade against typo redirects. Fieari (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep that is a plausible typo. Transposition error likely ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "SD" → South Dakota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• "ND" → North Dakota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL redirect that if kept, should redirect to ND and SD. "Delete". -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, or retargeted per nom otherwise. Fieari (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab pages. Adding a couple of quotes is not too unlikely. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 offseason → 2007 NFL season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Other sports have offseasons besides the NFL. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This is not the NFLpedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NFL isn't the only sport with an off-season. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. The deleted version was created by a sockpuppet so I decline to go out of my way to preserve it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack) → Khaidi No. 150  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the four revisions that were deleted at AFD (as I do not see a policy-baaed reason that justified their deletion in accordance with the WP:ATD !votes at the debate), merge the page history up to Onel5969's revision into Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), move the talk page to Talk:Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), then delete the remaining 2024 revision. ✗plicit 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not 100% sure I understand Explicit's proposal above, but whether the history of the former article is being maintained at Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) or Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack), the target (for both or just the one not deleted) should be refined to Khaidi No. 150#Soundtrack, and I will shortly change this for Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack). A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Make this title red on the merits as an implausible typo (missing "n"). I don't think RfD has the authority to undelete the history deleted at AfD as Explicit suggests (only DRV could do that), and am fine with history merging the 2020 edits to another title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pppery. Restoring the deleted revisions may be done by talking to Jo-Jo Eumerus (who was already pinged once in this discussion) or DRV. Jay 💬 12:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think it matters overmuch if the history is restored, despite the one or two sockfarms active there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nail You Down → Blue Öyster Cult  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a bootleg recording of a show, but isn't mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete...weak only because there's some article history, but it's completely unsourced. If anyone has an issue with that, it can always be PRODed or sent to AFD. Only info about this I found is the occasional blog, bare listing in a niche book, etc, and I doubt this could sustain its own article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Speedily deleted by Rsjaffe per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Justin Bieber dead → Justin Bieber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Justin bieber dead → Justin Bieber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Other than being killed in-universe in Zoolander 2, this redirect legitimately makes zero sense. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:SURPRISE, redirect is misleading. मल्ल (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 as a WP:HOAX. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• He has occasionally been the target of death hoaxes (Google; Bing), but these incidents are not mentioned anywhere in the article. So, delete both redirects unless information about the hoaxes is added to the article or he actually dies, which I doubt would happen any time soon. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• W i k i p e d i a → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I wager nobody would think about typing a space between every letter. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible, plus ｗｅ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ａｎ ｉｎｄｉｓｃｒｉｍｉｎａｔｅ ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｖａｐｏｒｗａｖｅ. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep WP:CHEAP and someone could paste it from some source that does that -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• D e l e t e   a s   U N N A T U R A L. CHEAP isn't a reason to keep unnatural/implausible redirects, and if the best you can come up with is "they might paste 'W i k i p e d i a' from some hypothetical source to search for Wikipedia on Wikipedia", that's about three stretches too far. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• D e l e t e p e r 35.139.154.158. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Now if you would excuse me, I have to update my playlist. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D e l e t e p e r e v e r y o n e a b o v e . Y e s , t h i s r e d i r e c t i n d e e d f e e l s W P : U N N A T U R A L . 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. In addition to the arguments provided, the page has had 39 total page views, so deletion shouldn't cause too much confusion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zelda: The Wand of Gannon → Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan _{talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend} 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail because this is getting more deletion votes than I expected: According to our article Ganon, In the Japanese versions of the first three games, his name is anglicized as "Gannon", with the citations implying that the spelling "Gannon" was still being used in 1991 (the Wand of Gamelon came out in 1993). Both the Gamelon/Ganon and Ganon/Gannon mixups are both very plausible in my view, and there is no alternate article that this could possibly redirect to - user definitely wants to find the current target. BugGhost🦗👻 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently, "Gamelon" is a setting, not an alternative name for Ganon. For this reason, the redirect is erroneous and not a title match in any form or variation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  correct, gamelon is the place, ganon (which the game explicitly spells with only two ns) is the green guy cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"

However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?

I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too implausible of a mistake. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah, i think 5 delete votes to a keep, a really weak keep, and a slightly less weak keep would have been enough cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are based on the strength of arguments, not the strength of bolded !votes. As it happens, it is 3 to 5 numerically, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You may be right in principle but I'd avoid making a comment like this if you're WP:INVOLVED. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll also kind of disagree with that, since even the substantially weak keep vote that the less weak but still weak keep vote was based on argued that getting two names mixed up and misspelling said wrong name might not be all that plausible cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I could reasonably see someone making both errors. Ganon being the main antagonist of the franchise (and of this game) and starting with the first two letters of Gamelon could potentially cause confusion, as well as Gannon being a typo the first game in the series itself made. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Problem there is then, a reader could search this redirect expecting the target to contain the subject at Ganon, which it does not. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think they would - when they are redirected to the article they would see that the title is actually "Gamelon". BugGhost🦗👻 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pppery, Steel1943 and Utopes. Too much drastically errors and it seems to its implausible words. This would be my final decision to close per WP:COSTLY. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 terrorist incidents in 2001. Rough consensus seems to have emerged for retargeting, with participants specifically noting that the redirect is essentially a truncated form of the list name. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2001 terrorist attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001 per @SeaHaircutSoilReplace. Hasn't this been RfD'd before? The term is too ambiguous to target an article about any particular incident, even if 9/11 is the most historically significant. Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carguychris This redirect has not been RfD'd before, which I find ridiculous. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I think it was something similarly worded and vague, like "2001 terror incident". I just recall making an almost identical comment before. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just found 2001 terrorist attacks via WLH, and added it to this proposal. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carguychris and PARKANYAA: you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#2001 New York attacks (that nomination was withdrawn), although neither of you commented on in that discussion. I too remember something similar to this and that's the only one I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf That was in fact what I was thinking of. I recall another similar one though... but that doesn't really matter I guess haha. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA after some more searching I've found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#2001 incident that Carguychris did participate in. The outcome was to delete because it was too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was the other one! Thanks. I saw that - I rarely vote in RfDs but I lurk a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, that was it. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree with the nomination, these redirects do not assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack in 2001, rather that 9/11 would be the primary topic for these terms. All this is saying is that someone searching "2001 (terrorist) attacks" would 'highly likely' be looking for 9/11 over all other topics. While 2001 also had events like 2001 anthrax attacks and the shoe bomb, all pale in comparison to 9/11. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 9/11 is the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Tavix @CFA Even if it was the primary topic, I don't think anyone would search for "2001 attacks" or "2001 terrorist attacks" if they were looking for 9/11. Most likely they'd just search for, well, 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems pretty plausible to me, actually. Redirects are cheap. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unclear how the "redirects are cheap" claim applies here at all. The issue is where the redirect targets, not the redirect's existence. Saying this redirect is cheap is akin to not having any type of argument of any stance in this specific discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I made some searches with [4] and [5] other [6] search engines [7] — the 9/11 terrorist attacks are definitely the PTOPIC for both redirects. I don't see how someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, mostly because no evidence is given to support this assertion. Cremastra — talk — c 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, simply due to the year which the current target occurred being less notable than its month/day combination. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, given the below discussion, I do not believe that the year by itself is sufficient to almost guarantee that readers are looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per very clear WP:PTOPIC. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like the primary topic to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Fieari @Pppery Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. All the recent pageviews for them in the past couple weeks are people coming to this RfD anyway.
  • 9/11 views
  • 2001 attacks views
  • 2001 terrorist attacks views

SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nominator. The 9/11 attacks were not the only attacks to happen in 2001. JIP | Talk 08:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nominator. While 9/11 was by far the most significant, the anthrax attacks are not to be discounted. Retargeting to the list of attacks in 2001 would still help those looking for the 9/11 article as well as feel consistent to those looking for other attacks. I think it's worth noting that there are fairly large attacks that happened in Angola, China, and Kashmir in 2001. From an internationalization perspective, I can easily see how Wikipedia users in those countries may be thinking of these attacks instead of 9/11 when trying to find "2001 attacks." Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. I do think someone searching "2001 attacks" is likely to be looking for 9/11, but they'll find it on the new target page. As for "2001 terrorist attacks", this seems to me to be the most normal way to search for the material we have at List of terrorist incidents in 2001, a phrase I would probably not manage to come up with on my own (and I'm someone who is familiar with our title conventions in general). It's probably how I would start out by searching for that information on google. -- asilvering (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last three comments appear to be supportive of retargeting, but still gonna relist as overall discussions still appear to be somewhat mixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. I agree with the nominator, 9/11 is not the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ベトナム系オーストラリア人 → Vietnamese Australians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This makes even less sense. It's literally just Australians who are ethnically Vietnamese. Why would someone search this up in Japanese? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:RFOREIGN this is not Japanese Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Speedily deleted by Asilvering per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rihanna Death → Rihanna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Uhh what? She hasn't even died. Did she song a song about dying or something that warrants this redirect? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being misleading, and per the lack of pageviews. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:SURPRISE, redirect is misleading. मल्ल (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 人身売買 → Human trafficking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:FORRED. Human trafficking occurs in every country so by that logic, we might as well make every translation of human trafficking be a redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• アメリカ合衆国国務省 → United States Department of State  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:FORRED TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Teletubbies characters) → Teletubbies#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Paratheses bracket at the end. Don't know if this can be speedied, but we probably all know the drill. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:UNNATURAL Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nueva York (desambiguación) → New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

a WP:FORRED for a disambiguation of all things TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Mwwv, WP:RFOREIGN, and my earlier nomination for a similar redirect. We don't need foreign disambiguators for disambiguation pages. Regards, SONIC678 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people probably want es:Nueva York (desambiguación). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 procedural keep. The only supporter of deletion has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Radiac detector → Geiger counter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

no mention. google search does show similar devices though TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment radiac [8] detector,should be any radiation detector,[https://ph.health.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/ANPDR-77RadiacSet_FS_26-007-0616.pdf not just geiger counters. Geiger counters are only a type of radiac[9] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fishers Island, New York (old edit history) → Fishers Island, New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Three years after the target and an essentially duplicate article were merged into one page, this redirect was created from a move by Nyttend (who might want to weigh in on this matter) to rearrange and preserve the edit history of the latter (which is located at Fishers Island). However, since this rearrangement was completed back in 2010 and there's not much history located at this exact "old edit history" title, I'm not sure we still need this redirect. I'm leaning toward deletion here, but I'm open to other outcomes, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a temporary location used for rearranging pages and not cleaned up afterwards as housekeeping, since the edit history clearly was relocated elsewhere. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Licensing Letter → Brand licensing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect title appears to be a company name that's loosely related? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Like License Global that's mentioned in the article The Licensing Letter is a trade publication that covers the licensing industry. They used to publish their top brand lists from 2010 to 2018 (used here List of highest-grossing media franchises) and have been mentioned in reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter. [10], The Morning Call [11],Chicago Tribune [12][13], Star Tribune [14] , among others. Timur9008 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not mentioned at target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as possible promo. May be recreated when we have info at the target or some other article. Jay 💬 13:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Blind taste test. Not enough support for turning Taste test into a redirect. No prejudice against nominating the page at AfD if desired. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blind tasting → Wine tasting#Blind tasting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous name, as you can do a blind tasting of any alcohol. Plausible search terms for this include Blind wine tasting and Beer tasting#Blind tasting, so I suggest converting this into a DAB page. No evidence that wine tasting is the primary topic for this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to taste test and add other "blind" tasting subjects there, rather than creating a new disambiguation for this subset of the same thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to taste test per Ivanvector. This isn't limited to alcohol, it's commonly done for colas for example. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Blind taste test Has general information about blind tasting. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Taste test? Or to Blind taste test?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Blind taste test as a closer target to what the searcher is looking for. Fieari (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Blind taste test. मल्ल (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Blind taste test, and maybe Taste test should be turned into a redirect too. It's a disambiguation page with only three topics, of which the first is a non-notable song and the second is a straightforward subtopic of the third. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Blind taste test per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above and I'm with Mx. Granger that Taste test should also become a redirect to Blind taste test. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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! 02:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pauletta Brupbakher → Paulette Brupbacher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Double typo, unlikely search term, originated from a Wikidata error apparently Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double error (on my part): turns out it wasn't a wikidata error, but rather the spelling of her name transliterated from Russian. Since she was Russian (ish), it makes sense that we had it that way originally. I've fixed the Wikidata item and added the Russian spelling to the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wouldn't this be a valid redirect as a reasonable transliteration? czar 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is (or so I now believe), but neither I nor Fram realized as much at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid redirect as it's from the transliteration of Russian. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as now being contained in the article as a transliteration. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephoscope → Stethoscope  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible. A very small number of google hits, the top of which are about a podcast with this as a punny, but intentional name, a far more likely search attempt. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, google shows 5 sites using the spelling "stephoscope" incorrectly, and then the podcast - which has 4 reviews and 11 episodes, the last of which was published nearly 4 years ago. On other search engines it doesn't even appear on the first page. Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. BugGhost🦗👻 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. Doubtful. It's a reasonably common word, sounds different, and as I just noted, has a very small number of google hits, demonstrating implausibility (also note a whopping 0 occurrences in the ngrams corpora -- plausible misspellings usually show up there at least a little). Also note the creator of this has a history of making bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were 0 search engine results, then it would demonstrate implausibility. The fact there are results shows that it is a mistake people make. For this (and the other spelling based RFD's we are disagreeing on) I'm not saying we should rename the article or anything, just that I can imagine someone misspelling the word this way. If someone types "stephoscope" into the search bar, they are without a doubt attempting to get to Stethoscope - if we delete this redirect we gain nothing, and if we keep it literally nothing bad happens. I think crusades to delete harmless redirects are a waste of everyone's time, and are far more annoying than the redirects themselves. There is no benefit to deleting this. BugGhost🦗👻 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plausible phonetic mispelling. /f/ and /θ/ are easy to mix up, and I've heard it done so quite often, especially (but not exclusive to) amongst younger english speakers. Fieari (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being unambiguous, and a plausible phonetic misspelling. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1 → Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• All redirects at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) except Talk: Lost (2004 TV series)

Several redirects were created when I tried to move Lost (2004 TV series) to Lost (TV series) after closing an RM discussion, but did not notice that the talk page was move protected, causing me to attempt a manual round robin and probably botching something in the process. I am hoping this, along with all the redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) can be deleted, as opposed to filling somebody's noticeboard with several dozen CSDs.

If they're kept for some reason, I will go about retargeting them, but from the look of it none of them are actually linked to outside of the other redirects. They should either qualify for WP:G6 or one of the redirect criteria. ASUKITE 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are incoming links to some. Get them straightened out and I don't see why this can't then be speedied. (Or wait a day and a bot should clean up the 2xredirs...) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can take a look later tonight when I'm back home if the bot hasn't already gotten to them. ASUKITE 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all on the merits - these are perfectly reasonable {{R from move}}s and while I wouldn't have complained if they had been suprressredirected originally now that we're here there's no actual reason to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the botched self-redirects. Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1 should redirect to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 1. Jay 💬 19:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).