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 Flight of the Conchords#Appearances. Consensus was unanimous here that retargeting to the broader Flight of the Conchords topic was preferable to deletion. Though not mentioned exactly, as noted by the nom, it's mentioned as Live In London (an alternative name), as AngusWOOF noted. I've refined the target to the section where it is mentioned, and added applicable rcats. Anyone may feel free to add additional, or alter any of the, rcats boldly post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flight of the Conchords: Live in Concert → Hamish Hamilton (director)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search would suggest that Hamilton directed a film titled Flight of the Conchords: Live in London, but not by the name of the redirect. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flight of the Conchords where Live in London is mentioned as a HBO concert special. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/television/flight-of-the-conchords-hbo.html AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per AngusWOOF. Narky Blert (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment AngusWOOF's proposal sounds good to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 4 February 2020 (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 speedy delete. WP:G7 per this edit _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Force Dyad → Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Force dyad → Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Force diad → Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Force Diad → Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 2 February 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rilasiri → Dayasiri Jayasekara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I can't find any justification either. Seems to refer to some politician but as it isn't mentioned anywhere on the 'pedia I don't think digging too much would be a good use of time. Maybe a uncommon misspelling? J947 ^(c), at 22:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an insulting nickname, see this and this; Jayasekara was Minister of Sport at the time. I don't know any Sinhalese or Tamil, but can guess at the sort of thing it might mean; I've seen Sri Lanka referred to as 'Sri Lundka', punning on a Hindi slang word for 'penis'. Narky Blert (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankie Pangilinan → Sharon Cuneta#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not actually mentioned at the target by name, delete unless a justification can be provided. Search results would suggest that Frankie is the name of one of Cuneta's daughters, and is not a nickname for her husband, Francis Pangilinan _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Francis Pangilinan would not be a suitable target, because all sources say that his nickname is "Kiko". "Frankie" is Simone Francesca Emmanuelle Pangilinan (no article, born 2000, not obviously notable), daughter of Francis and Sharon. Narky Blert (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (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 speedy retarget to Singin' in the Rain (song). Early closure, per WP:SNOW. Clear and convincing primary topic per unanimous SNOWball consensus. No prejudice to adding a hatnote to Singing in the Rain (Simple Plan song) outside of RfD at each of Singin' in the Rain (song) and Singing in the Rain (Simple Plan song). (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Singing in the Rain (song) → Singing in the Rain (Simple Plan song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Singin' in the Rain (song); easily the most well-known song with this name, and what readers will almost certainly expect when searching for this title. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 20:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. I don't see the point in opening a discussion on this one. Just retarget it. Ss112 07:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. I agree with Ss112. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2020 (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 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Girl's Talk (Lil' Kim song) → Lil' Kim discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Can find no evidence of this supposed song's existence. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 20:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like a mix-up. I cannot connect Lil' Kim with a song called "Girl's Talk". However, I have found evidence (such as it is) that "This Is the Remix" on Girl Talk's album All Day samples Lil' Kim's "The Jump Off". Narky Blert (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It might have been a rumoured song title for Lil Kim's aborted album, but whatever the case, it's not mentioned at the target and isn't valid now. Ss112 07:46, 3 February 2020 (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 21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Back With Style → Charlotte Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Can find no evidence of this supposed album's existence. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 20:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like speculation and a reason why editors, past and present, should not create unsourced stubs based on rumours. Ss112 07:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any connection at all. Narky Blert (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm genuinely surprised that this exact title has never been used in any music context: no albums, no music videos, no songs, nothing... interesting! Anyways, as stated above, deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2020 (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 speedy deleted via G7. (non-admin closure) J947 ^(c), at 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shai Zamanian → [[:{{{target}}}]]  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A google search for Shai Zamanian brings up a non-notable lawyer, and no result of Annahita Zamanian, a footballer Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:35, 2 February 2020 (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 Glossary of botanical terms#Incomplete flower. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Incomplete flower → Flower  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, thus the target article makes it unclear in what "incomplete" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Glossary of botanical terms#I, to which I've just added it (with two hidden citations). Narky Blert (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Glossary of botanical terms#I per Narky Blert's find, but add rcats {{R without mention}} (possibly, since it's not mentioned exactly), {{R from synonym}} (possibly since Narky added it as "imperfect flower"), and either of {{R to list entry}} (preferred) or {{R to section}}. Note: I Like that Narky is consistently using WP:RFFL now, which is also my preferred shortcut for foreign-language redirects.. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooops. It's mentioned exactly now, in line with the sources. I agree with {{R to list entry}}. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. I've struck out that portion of the rcat then. Doug Mehus T·C 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Glossary of botanical terms#Incomplete flower per Narky; always best to use an anchor for these purposes. Noting that there is a Wiktionary entry. {{R to list entry}} and {{R to anchor}} are both applicable, as well as {{R printworthy}}. J947 ^(c), at 22:47, 5 February 2020 (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 22:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RoSe → Rose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely use of capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or weak retarget to Rose (disambiguation). It's a plausible contraction and stylisation of something like Robert Sessions, Inc. (made-up example), but I can't find a match in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish WPs. Narky Blert (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as not implausible typo in capitalization or retarget to the dab page, per Narky Blert, which I think is actually the best outcome here actually based on Narky's analysis (that's just one example, but I'm sure we can think of multiple others—made up and real). --Doug Mehus T·C 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Narky Blert's hypothetical is all the more reason to delete, I think. If a user capitalizes the S, they're likely looking for something specific, and after browsing the disambiguation page, I don't think we have it. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: The dab page doesn't have that capitalization mentioned, specifically, but could we not retarget there with {{R from miscapitalisation}}? --Doug Mehus T·C 22:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though if we treat it as a miscapitalization, it would be better to keep. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD. "RoSe", with capitalization in the middle of the word, is an intentional capitalization. Someone would therefore be looking for something we do not have. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:29, 10 February 2020 (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 21:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantasy (Word) → Fantasy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Bad capitalisation, and the target article doesn't mention the etymology of the word "fantasy". Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the rationale for Christopher Wilson (reporter) and Sheila Gunn Reid RfDs, which have either been deleted, or most likely will be at closure, as implausible typos and search terms due to the presence of the disambiguating parenthetical qualifier. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as an incorrect disambiguation that is not resolved by the target. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the target certainly is not a dictionary entry. ComplexRational (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2020 (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 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sakai (Malaysian word) → Manglish#Words and grammar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no information about a Malaysian word "Sakai" at Manglish, and I cannot identify another suitable target. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From Senoi (redirected from Sakai (tribe)), 'For the Malay people, the term sakai is a derogatory term in Malay language and its derivative word menyakaikan means "to treat with arrogance and contempt".' I can see no reason keep a redirect which in effect functions as a WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary does not include that meaning: see wikt:Sakai. Narky Blert (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of the disambiguating parenthetical qualifier, which makes it a highly implausible search term and typo. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:19, 3 February 2020 (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 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Z word → Zombie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Z word" is not mentioned in the article, and the term is potentially ambiguous. I'm not sure this slang expression needs a redirect: delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to Urban Dictionary (link), it's used (once?) in the 2004 film Shaun of the Dead; but our article doesn't mention the term, and I see no reason why it should. Narky Blert (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The term does appear in a bunch of popular media when characters are trying to avoid saying "zombie". But I don't think any article on WP actually mentions this as it is a trivial fact. It could be a search term, but then again, so could many other "zombie" synonyms over the years. I don't think it quite reaches the plausible search term threshold. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation as a soft redirect to Wiktionary, if and when Wiktionary adds a dictionary definition, per Hellknowz. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 3 February 2020 (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 21:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Baba (slavic word) → Crone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Crone does not discuss the Slavic word "Baba". Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Crone" is one, but not the only, meaning of "baba"; Polish Wiktionary lists 28 meanings. Delete as both ambiguous and WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per emerging consensus at this RfD discussion for Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary, and per Narky Blert's thorough analysis. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could also have mentioned the miscapitalisation of "Slavic". Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:09, 3 February 2020 (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 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicken nugget (word) → Chicken nugget  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"Chicken nugget" isn't a word. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it only had 5 views in 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nugget page does not describe the etymology of the phrase. Hog Farm (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per emerging consensus at this RfD discussion for Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2020 (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 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth (word) → Net worth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Net worth does not discuss the etymology of "worth". Delete Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per emerging consensus at this RfD discussion for Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not only a WP:DICDEF-type redirect, but the target is not the only meaning of the word. See wikt:worth#Noun. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumpgate → Wormholes in fiction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I initially redirected it to Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative but it was contested, and redirected to Wormholes in fiction. However, the only mention of a jumpgate in said article is from Babylon 5. I'm not sure how a fictional element of a single series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a work of media that is commonly called that name. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpgate; while both options were discussed, the preference there was for the existing redirect target. Remember that articles are about subjects, not words. The existing target has other examples of synonymns and alternative spellings (eg, "Jump Gate"). Also, Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative seems relatively obscure. VQuakr (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a plausible synonym for "wormhole" in science fiction. We may want to reassess, and add to, the rcats here ({{R from synonym}} and {{R from fictional element}}, possibly?). --Doug Mehus T·C 14:47, 3 February 2020 (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 04:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Class H planet → Trade Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an in-universe Star Trek term not mentioned at the target. Considering that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classification was closed as delete, and other redirects of the sort (e.g. for the more widely described Class M planet) either have been deleted or never existed, there is no clear target in WP for this redirect. I thus suggest deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any content about "Class H planet"s on the English Wikipedia via the search function. Hog Farm (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ComplexRational. Seems like a leftover redirect that survived the AfD and was unknowingly retargeted by someone else boldly (or perhaps that's this boldly?). --Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nom and ComplexRational are the same person...though no need to worry about socking. It seems the target was changed before the AfD actually(2016 and 2019 respectively), and it's lifesign wasn't registered thereafter, so here we are. ComplexRational (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Oops! Can't believe I didn't notice that. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 01:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Zombie virus → Zombie (computing)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems like the much more obvious WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would be to zombie apocalypse rather than here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate Equally valid arguments for primary usage either way. Hog Farm (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Hog Farm. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2020 (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 convert to article. It looks like the article has already been started, so I think this RfD is no longer necessary. Early closure; the closure doesn't seem to conflict with any of the !votes given, though - IAR, etc. Please ping me if anyone wants this reopened and I can self-rv. (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brazilian Bass → Hear Me Now (Alok song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Brazilian Bass is not a notable genre of music and besides, redirecting a music genre to a specific song makes no sense. Pichpich (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep.Brazilian Bass is a notable genre. Many famous Dj's and producers are making this style music and have stated this is what the sub-genre is called. There are multiple articles on this. Nana222222 12:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IDK if this is a notable genre or not. If it is, write the article; at least in Portuguese, because there isn't one; although a few articles in Portuguese WP do mention Brazilian Bass. I agree with nom that redirecting from a genre (with "multiple articles") to one song is useless. Alok (DJ) and Chris Leão also mention Brazilian Bass, so a redirect to just one song looks wholly inappropriate. For present purposes, the miscapitalisation ("Brazilian Bass" is not a proper noun) can be ignored. Narky Blert (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys that redirecting a music genre to a specific song makes no sense. I was never the one to do that. I don't know why that's happened. All I wanted to do was create an English article on the genre as I think it's notable. The music is starting to be produced by artists who aren't Brazilian and it's being played at American and European festivals. I therefore think it deserves an English article. Nana222222 2:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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 04:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Trump Empire → Template:Trump family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Trump's family does not constitute an "empire". Also, use of the term "empire" for anything else relating to the POTUS would appear promotional or non-NPOV. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional or NPOV if referring to his financial network, and his family is definitely not numerous to constitute an entire empire out of (heck, you can't even make two baseball teams out of the members in that template). Hog Farm (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or possibly retarget to Template:Trump businesses. Narky Blert (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert Retargeting would only be helpful if this redirect was showing any usage. What likely happened here is two substantially similar templates got merged at TfD, and they don't automatically delete the trailing redirects even after substituting and orphaning them. They leave that for RfD to cleanup, if and when someone nominates it. So, I really look at the transclusion count to see whether or not it's got any usage as I find that's the most helpful. See also Template:RFL and Template:Rfl, which were short-hand redirects for Template:Reflist, which both closed as "delete" at TfD and RfD respectively. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm conflicted. Per WP:RNEUTRAL if a non-neutral term is sufficiently "established" then it should be redirected to a neutral article. This aids readers who may indeed have non-neutral search queries. But this rational doesn't make sense to me in template-space, since readers hardly ever search for templates. This redirect is almost certainly useless -- no links, transclusions, and almost no pageviews. But I'm not sure this is sufficient to delete it. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BenKuykendall No, it's entirely the reason to delete it. Templates are different than articles, where redirects are helpful. If there is active usage for a short-hand or other redirect to a template, then it should be kept, and we could add applicable rcats as necessary. Sometimes with templates that say, "never transclude," it's hard to tell whether or not it's being used, but in this case, it's entirely a transclude-able navbox template redirect, so we can tell exactly how to use it. You were on the right track. Doug Mehus T·C 14:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero transclusions, which passes my criteria for deleting redirects to templates. It simply has zero usage. Best to delete it as housekeeping and for WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10, in the event there becomes a second business magnate named Trump, entirely unrelated to Donald Trump. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough sourcing for a redirect with a loaded word. Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These are all interesting arguments for deleting or keeping, but the strongest argument is that it is simply unused. As an entirely transcluded template, this redirect has no transclusions. Personally, I think we should have a larger conversation at the village pump about instructing TfD to delete the trailing redirect when the result is "merge" or "redirect." The redirect should only be kept when (a) there is significant history worth keeping, but even then, there are other history merge options that can be explored or (b) it hasn't been orphaned and there are remaining transclusions. Doug Mehus T·C 16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A great deal of people clearly perceive Trump's general business operation as an "empire", but that's not precisely the issue here. As stated above, this isn't about articles. I also don't find what we have here helpful in terms of template-space. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2020 (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 speedy keep. Early closure, per WP:SNOW, with thanks to Narky Blert et al. and others for explaining the purpose of having redirects with the (disambiguation) parenthetical qualifier to dab pages without them to Connor Behan. Essentially, Connor, there are times when one needs to link to the dab page (especially in hatnotes or on dab pages themselves), but linking to the dab page directly without the piping will cause it to show up on an error report and DPLbot will notify you via your talk page to update to a piped link. The reason for DPLbot's existence is because we don't want to have people click through to a dab page, from a wikilink in an article, where's no clear, primary topic. Hope that makes sense. If not, ask via my talk page, Narky's talk page, or at The Teahouse. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode 1 (disambiguation) → Episode I  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Episode 6 (disambiguation) → Episode VI (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Episode Six (disambiguation) → Episode VI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Episode I through Episode VI are disambiguation pages. Episode I (disambiguation) through Episode VI (disambiguation) are redirects to them. We do not need yet another redirect. The above three are safe to delete because they have the shortest possible edit history and nothing links to them. Connor Behan (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Redirects to DAB pages through the (disambiguation) qualifier are required by WP:INTDAB. That includes redirects from variant spellings such as these. Narky Blert (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So Episode one (disambiguation), Episode two (disambiguation), Episode three (disambiguation), Episode four (disambiguation), Episode five (disambiguation), Episode 2 (disambiguation), Epsiode 3 (disambiguation), Episode 4 (disambiguation) and Episode 5 (disambiguation) should all be created? Connor Behan (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It would do no harm to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are all plausible search terms and are very relevant to the targeted pages. Hog Farm (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take this chance to learn about different Wikipedia habits. Do people actually search for "X (disambiguation)"? Every time I've needed to go to such a page, it has been enough just to type "X". Connor Behan (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Connor Behan:. I imagine that some readers may go through the (disambiguation) qualifier, but the principal purpose of those redirects is the one explained in WP:INTDAB: to tell bots (notably User:DPL bot) that a link to a DAB page is intentional and not an error. Variants (spelling, capitalisation, etc.) can be useful in making a link in e.g. a hatnote or a see-also look more natural in any given article. Also, WP:CHEAP applies. Narky Blert (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so the idea is that if linking to these disambiguation pages becomes popular, people will save time typing See also [[Epsidoe 1 (disambiguation)]] instead of See also [[Episode I (disambiguation)|Episode 1 (disambiguation)]]. Connor Behan (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Connor Behan: I'd put it a slightly different way. A reader types XYZ One into the searchbox, and finds themself looking at an article about a TV station with that name. If there's a hatnote saying "For other uses, see XYZ 1 (disambiguation)", a natural reaction would be: Why the hell should I? I'm reading about the name I typed in! On the other hand, a hatnote saying "For other uses, see XYZ One (disambiguation)" might alert them to the fact that they might not be reading the article they were looking for! Narky Blert (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was that the top of the page can display "XYZ One (disambiguation)" even when only "XYZ 1 (disambiguation)" exists. The benefit of having both, IMO, is simply that editors don't have to remember to keep typing the pipe. Connor Behan (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Narky and Hog. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per others. J947 ^(c), at 23:31, 2 February 2020 (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.