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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The weather in Chesterfield → Chesterfield#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term (only 7 hits for all of 2020), ambiguous since there are multiple places by this name (Chesterfield is a dab page). (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hopelessly ambiguous - 13 full title matches on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pluvialas → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pollenpeeper → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Mountain Pollenpeeper → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Yellow Pollenpeeper → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Foliumaves → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Eoireitum → Evolution (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects originate from a 2007 AfD, but are not currently mentioned at the target (though "pollencreeper", apparently a variation on "pollenpeeper", is). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was accept draft. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit count → Counter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Edit countsEdit counts → Counter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The only edit count mentioned at the target dab page is the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters in the hatnote. This should either be retargeted to Wikipedia:Edit count or, if deemed inappropriate as a XNR, deleted. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be willing to bet that enough sources could be found to create an article on Wikipedia edit counts. BD2412 T 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's also Edit countsEdit counts, redirecting to the same target. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Edit count and Edit counts. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Ḥdiddān 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've added Edit counts to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to Wikipedia:Edit count. Both redirects have been deleted and recreated multiple times as Crossnamespace redirects, but the only discussion there has been is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 23#Edit count → Wikipedia:Edit count (the plural has never been discussed afaict). @Titoxd and Risker: are the only users who participated there who are still active. The number of recreations (about 20 over both redirects I think) and the 76 page views they got (combined) last year strongly indicate that these redirects are desired and useful. Neither target isn't perfect, but in the absence of anything that is either one is very significantly more helpful than the search results which (excluding these redirects) find nothing relevant on the first page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Un assiolo, Ḥdiddān, and Thryduulf: I have started Draft:Edit count as a proof of concept for a freestanding article. There are substantial sources on the topic. This content can either be further developed and moved to mainspace, or merged into a relevant article and the redirects pointed to that section. BD2412 T 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about the notability of edit counts, and there's probably not much material to expand the article with. Maybe the draft could be made into a section at Wikipedia or a related article, with Edit count and Edit counts redirecting there? --Un assiolo (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would probably be better as a section of Wiki, which is the general article on this style of collaborative project. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Un assiolo: I get over 250 hits on Google Scholar alone. BD2412 T 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget per Thryduulf. If there was an existing article about edit counts (not counters, which is too broad a topic), I'd say a hatnote would be sufficient. I'm certain experienced Wikipedians don't realize how often the topic of edit counts is discussed onwiki, and for newer users, figuring out where to find an explanation is very difficult. In many cases, we use hatnotes if there's an article with a very similar topic, but in the absence of an article, I'm inclined to stick to the redirect method. The more I look at it, I think the suggested retarget is the best outcome for now. Risker (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget as per above. If it’s been recreated 20 times what are we doing by deleting it other than creating a continual pointless debate? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above also. To paraphrase BD2412, a well-sourced article could most certainly be created for this topic (and I would greatly encourage any action towards this). Sean Stephens (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sean Stephens: Draft:Edit count. BD2412 T 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: Thanks for letting me know about the draft's existence, it's looking great already. Let me know if I can help in any way. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure there is something useful or interesting that I have overlooked. Any additional perspective would help. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article looks great! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Draft:Edit count to mainspace and retarget Edit counts (and Editcountitis) there. I am satisfied that the draft is mainspace-ready. BD2412 T 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Publish Draft:Edit count to article space and retarget both redirects there, now that there is a suitable article for the topic. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The draft looked more than ready to be an article so I think these can be redirected to an actual article making it non-cross namespace. I’m happy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Publish the draft, of course. Note that Edit counterEdit counter, which I should have included in this nomination, should be retargeted to it, too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Publish Draft:Edit count to article space per the above. Good work. CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Islam-related films. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Muslim cinemaMuslim cinema → List of cinema of the world  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ideally, "Muslim cinema" should have its own article, provided that there are sources to sustain it. But in the meantime, this redirect is unexpected and obscures the fact that we don't actually have an article on Muslim cinema, so it should be deleted. Rublov (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In looking at the page history, I've realized that Muslim cinema was formerly a real article, before it was turned into a redirect. I still think the creation of that redirect was in error, but the original article was low-quality and almost entirely unsourced, so I don't think it should just be restored either. Not sure what the proper procedure is in this case. Rublov (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Retarget to List of Islam-related films. This seems to be be the most relevant result I could find, but I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to target this to a list of films. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Retarget to List of Islam-related films as the current most plausible target, with no prejudice against creating a more thorough article in the future. I can see the WP:REDLINK argument, however... BlackholeWA (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Islam-related films - this is a reasonable target. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew Gisborne → Category:North v South cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. There is a mention at List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#G, so I suggest retargeting there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bad XNR. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. By searching Matthew Gisborne, the reader could be looking for the merchant, the politician, or the author as well as the cricketer, and none seems to be an obvious primary topic. Creating a dab page for the all those mentions would be pushing it; you could just about make an appropriate dab page listing the politician and the cricketer, but fitting the other two in stretches things, and leaving them out harms navigation. Thus, directing readers to this helpful search page is probably the optimum solution. Note that an XNR from the mainspace to the category namespace isn't harmful in and of itself, as both namespaces are ostensibly reader-facing. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: Could you please elaborate why creating a dab page with all meanings is not a solution? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be made, but it would be hard to include entries for the author and the merchant. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @J947: Why would it be hard? Could you please ping me at RfDs; I'm not usually watching the log pages. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @1234qwer1234qwer4: I'm not sure exactly how to explain this but it would be awkward to provide disambiguation entries for what are effectively passing mentions. I'm not opposed to a dab page, but it would be hard to create. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I think J947 has it right here. There are multiple Matthew Gisbornes but they're all extremely minor mentions, it would be a very weak disambiguation page and the search results seem preferable. ~ mazca ^talk 13:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Hindu gurus and sants. Since it was suggested there has been agreement that this is preferable to deletion. It's not a perfect match given the disorganisation of the list, but clearly a closely-related topic with significant overlap. ~ mazca ^talk 18:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of YogisList of Yogis → Yogi#List of Yogis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no list of Yogis in the article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There was a short and ill-chosen list in the article some years ago, but it was obviously problematic (who to select of the untold number; was it for humans, enlightened beings, semi-divine figures, or indeed gods? - clearly a mixture was undesirable and confusing) and was rightly removed. The redirect serves no useful function. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete currently a misleading redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Hindu gurus and sants, which also lists notable yogis, and which seems to be where the content that used to be in the targeted subsection was moved to at some point. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Hindu gurus and sants per Ivanvector since it lists several yogis. A7V2 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Ivanvector. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ivanvector et al. Clearly a better alternative to deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Клаксвик → Klaksvík  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:FORRED. No particular affinity with Serbian or any language using Cyrillic letters. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BringBackGranadaTalkTV → Granada Talk TV#BringBackGranadaTalkTV movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-notable meme, apparently originating from the same minor content creator referenced in the BlakeIsHere RFD below. (See Special:Diff/1006517055.) Not mentioned in target article. 10 GHits. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 20:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I removed the section of the article earlier because it was unsourced, undue and seemed to be promoting a DeviantArt account. Not a notable meme. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BlakeIsHere vs. Sky News → Criticisms of Sky UK#BSkyB's EPG charges  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. Google brings up nothing helpful for this term in quotes. "BlakeIsHere" appears to be a quite minor content creator. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G1/G3/G11 Nonsense redirect, google doesn't turn up any results related to this phrase. Appears to be an attempt at promotion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Peppa is Fucking Dead → Peppa Pig#Criticism, controversy, concerns and influences  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A Google search shows that this phrase has been used precisely seven times on indexed pages, all in relation to one or two memes. Delete. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 20:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• XfdiskXfdisk → Fdisk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:CHEAP - "xfdisk" seems to stand for "extended fdisk". P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per P,TO 19104's findings. The reader who searches up xfdisk will be helped more by being directed to fdisk compared to being taken to a blank search page. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Painted Game Term → Leet#Owned and pwned  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As with #Painted! below, no mention at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kibitzeach → Leet#Owned and pwned  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not explained at target or anywhere else on-wiki. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The free dictionary web page on Kibitzeach redirects to pwn, but I'm not necessarily sure that merits a keep. Voting Weak delete. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kilovh → Leet#Owned and pwned  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target or anywhere on Wikipedia; created by a user with the same name as the page title. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Painted! → Leet#Owned and pwned  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target and highly ambiguous. paintedpainted redirects to paint, which is not a plausible target for this redirect in my opinion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom - does not seem to have any connection with Leet on internet search. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CountryhumansCountryhumans → Neo-Nazism#Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nonsense redirect from a fandom to a political ideology. Either create an article (if the sources about it are reliable) or delete. Purplneon486 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Non-notable fandom. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countryhumans. No relation to Neo-Nazism or Pakistan. Nonsense. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G1. Nonsense redirect. From what I can tell it seems to be a bit like Polandball but with people? No connection to Neo-Nazism or Pakistan, and not mentioned at the target article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G1/G3 per above. Think I'll go have a word with the redirect's creator about some of their recent edits... -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 20:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chaungtha languageChaungtha language → Arakanese language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no mention of "Chaungtha" in the article, and Glottolog indicates there is no assured link. I'd like to put a hatnote at Chaungtha, Pathein saying "Chaungtha redirects here. For the language see ..." but I can't do that unless the nominated redirect is legitimate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yeah, this redirect is iffy. I see the idea but there's no reason to keep it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Why create needless redlinks that will just need to be recreated? Your link says it all -- Chaungtha is a variety of Arakanese. This is a former ISO language name and code that existed for decades (at least 40 yrs) before being retired. So, unless you want to write a dedicated article on Chaungtha, it needs to rd to the correct article. Also, it would be weird to have a rd for the code but not for the name.

We should probably have that hatnote at 'Chaungtha, Pathein'. The rd is legitimate, as the link above shows. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kwamikagami. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget the first three to Abortion debate#Terminology, Keep the 5th and 6th and retarget the 4th to Freedom of choice. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Corrected apparent mixup of "4th" and "5th", to reflect the close that Thryduulf actually implemented. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Woman's right to chooseWoman's right to choose → Abortion-rights movements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• A woman's right to chooseA woman's right to choose → Abortion debate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Slogan: a woman's right to chooseSlogan: a woman's right to choose → Abortion debate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Right to chooseRight to choose → Abortion-rights movements#Terminology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Freedom to chooseFreedom to choose → Freedom of choice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Right of choiceRight of choice → Freedom of choice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The first three of these mean the same thing and should thus all point to the same target. (The third is an unusual search term, but a redirect has existed at this title for 17 years (with an article having been there for a few months prior). If anyone does move to delete it, color me neutral in that regard.)

The fourth raises the question of whether "right to choose" is still distinctively associated with abortion when the word "woman's" is removed. In my view it still is. ("Man's right to choose" is only mentioned as a section at Child support.) If it isn't, though, it should match Freedom to chooseFreedom to choose, which is included here for the sake of completeness.

Of the three targets used by the four "right to" redirects, I think that Abortion-rights movements is preferable to Abortion debate as more specific, but the #Terminology section-link used in Right to chooseRight to choose is an even better fit. I therefore propose to keep Freedom to chooseFreedom to choose; (re)target the rest to Abortion-rights movements § Terminology -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Target 1, 2, 3 to the same place, and I prefer Abortion debate which has an early link to Abortion-rights movements. Target 4, 5 to the same place, and I prefer Freedom of choice as a more generic article, which has a clear link to Abortion debate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Shhhnotsoloud. I think “right to choose” doesn’t have to imply abortion to be fair. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Target 1, 2, 3 to Abortion debate#Terminology (I've just proposed merging from Abortion-rights movements#Terminology). Target 4, 5 to Freedom of choice, because it's also used in other instances (e.g., right to choose to die). 6: I noted that right of choice was commonly used: [1]. So, I've taken the liberty of creating it (temporarily redirecting to freedom of choice) and tagging it as part of the discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for adding that. I think you accidentally listed "Right to choose" a second time, so I've taken the liberty of correcting that; if I'm misunderstanding, feel free to revert. I'll add my !vote regarding your addition when I'm awake. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Jordan Omogbehin. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Omos → Amos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target repeatedly changed to and from Amos / Jordan Omogbehin. Omogbehin is a wrestler using Omos as a ring name. There is disagreement over the title of his article (there is an RMs pending to move it to Omos (wrestler)), but regardless of what that article is called it looks like the wrestler using the name is the obvious target - not Amos which, not surprisingly, is filled with things that start with "A", not "O". MB 04:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jordan Omogbehin. The redirect Omos was created in 2004 for unknown reasons, and prior to the wrestler taking it as his ring name, this would be a candidate for deletion. probably should have been changed to Omo. -GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale in the edit summaries of Omos are a bit odd. Clearly there is concensus at least on Talk:Jordan Omogbehin that it should target either Jordan Omogbehin or Omo and not the current target. My preference would be to retarget to Jordan Omogbehin as the only topic which is a plural and isn't an acronym, with a hatnote to Omo. Second preference is to retarget to Omo. Definitely don't keep the current target (but could put it as a "see also" on Omo if people feel that is necessary). A7V2 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion may be of relevance to: @In ictu oculi, BD2412, Buidhe, Nnadigoodluck, Anthony Appleyard, Crouch, Swale, and Gilgamesh~enwiki: -GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it was retargeted and that was reverted several times, it needs to be discussed per WP:BRD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Do you have an opinion? -GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really much of one but having had a look maybe this should indeed go to the wrestler since it's not clear if any of the other alternatives are known by this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jordan Omogbehin, perhaps with a hatnote to Beyond the Farthest Star (novel) as the only other use of "Omos" although not explicitly mentioned there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. I don't even remember this edit. Let consensus prevail. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep44. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Shaking Cup ManShaking Cup Man → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Yet another of Robbie's disguises that's not mentioned at the target, and a Google search brings up irrelevant results. Delete this, or alternatively, retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep43 44, unless a justification can be provided as to why it's at its current target. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 03:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep44 (not 43) but equally happy with delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must've missed it. Thanks for pointing out the correct episode. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep44: Don't see any reason for deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep43. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Purple legendPurple legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Purple LegendPurple Legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The Purple LegendThe Purple Legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The purple legendThe purple legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is another Robbie Rotten disguise mentioned at List of LazyTown episodes#ep43 but not at the target. I'm thinking we should either delete these, or if they're kept, retarget them to that place (or wherever else appropriate). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 03:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget: per nominator. The only unrelated "purple legend" on Wikipedia is at Trapeze (band), which doesn't seem to be a likely expected target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep43. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob R. RobleyRob R. Robley → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Rob RobleyRob Robley → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

That's another Robbie Rotten disguise that isn't mentioned at the target (but it is at List of LazyTown episodes#ep43, where I think these should be retargeted if they're kept), but its name is also ambiguous with real people (especially for the one without the middle initial, for which a Google search brings up some of these irrelevant people). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 03:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep43: This is the only Rob Robley we have on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep42. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• H. R. RotteneinH. R. Rottenein → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• RotteneinRottenein → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Another of Robbie's disguises that's not mentioned at the target. Either delete or retarget those to List of LazyTown episodes#ep42 where Professor Rottenein is mentioned. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep42: This is the only "Rottenein" we have on Wikipedia, so it should be unambiguous. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep41. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Roberto the RingmasterRoberto the Ringmaster → LazyTown#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is one of Robbie Rotten's disguises that's not mentioned at the target article, and also kinda ambiguous. I'm leaning towards deletion here, but if it's kept, it should be retargeted to List of LazyTown episodes#ep41 where it's mentioned. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 03:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep41: What's ambiguous? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. It's probably best to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. (non-admin closure) Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Roberto the RingmasterRoberto the Ringmaster → LazyTown#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• H. R. RotteneinH. R. Rottenein → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• RotteneinRottenein → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Shaking Cup ManShaking Cup Man → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Rob RobleyRob Robley → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Rob R. RobleyRob R. Robley → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Purple LegendPurple Legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Purple legendPurple legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The Purple LegendThe Purple Legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The purple legendThe purple legend → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These are some more of Robbie Rotten's disguises, which aren't mentioned in the target article. Even though I'm leaning towards deleting them, if kept they should be retargeted wherever appropriate (the respective episodes in which they appear at the list of episodes, perhaps?). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sonic678: I think it's best to split up this nomination, as some of the redirects seem significantly more appropriate than others. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: OK, got it. I'll split this thing up. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chef Robert → LazyTown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is meant to refer to one of Robbie Rotten's disguises, but it's pretty ambiguous and can refer to any chef named Robert (several of whom have Wikipedia pages). Plus, Robert doesn't seem to list any of the people mentioned as chefs, so I'm not sure about retargeting there. As such, I suggest we either delete this or retarget it wherever appropriate. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I think this search landing page, while not perfect, does a much better job of disambiguating than any article in this scenario. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JP947. A7V2 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JP947. Ambiguous name and the search results are reasonable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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