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. I've no comment on whether this would meet wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, but consensus is clear this shouldn't be here. I'll gladly offer the minimal content to anyone who wants to create the page at wiktionary, although I'll note the two sentences are quite close to two from the non-RS http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1341072 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tertius gaudens → Georg Simmel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Bad redirect – lemma not even mentioned in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the shortcomings of the Georg Simmel article aren't the fault of the redirect. The phrase tertius gaudens exists, is known (to some), and was coined by Simmel. It isn't misleading, confusing, unlikely, offensive, or spam, which about takes care of the main reasons for outright deleting a redirect. Just possibily there is a better target, something related to competition theory perhaps, but I couldn't find any current WP article that describes it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't think this is misleading or confusing? A reader seeking to learn what "Tertius gaudens" means will land on Simmel's article and be satisfied? --BDD (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if there's no coverage of the phrase on Wikipedia then the redirect should not exist. I doubt it will ever evolve beyond a dicdef so it shouldn't be covered in a biography anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see how this is useful given the article's present state. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Copy to Wiktionary using this revision. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy to Wiktionary per Tavix and then soft redirect there. Not a very active user (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has no information about the subject. In my opinion we shouldn't be redirecting to wikt a potentially huge number of latin phrases for which we have no article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially huge? The significant Latin phrases are listed locally. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mulatto Axe murders → Clementine Barnabet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, since the target article does not cover the topic. The Mulatto axe murders were 49 axe murders in Louisiana and Texas in 1911–12 (link). While Barnabet confessed to some of them, the event was bigger than just her and the murders continued even after her arrest (see this link for more context). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (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 Commercial sorghum#Sorghum beer. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• African Sorghum Beer → Sorghum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Existed as an article for 10 minutes in 2007. Non-standard capitalization. Plantdrew (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Umqombothi or better Pito (beer). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

• How about Beer in Africa? Rich's suggestions are fine, but there are other African sorghum beers. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Pito (beer) as per Rich Farmbrough. The pito article is not too specific. --Bejnar (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Beer in Africa. Getting too specific a target risks making it harder for readers to find other relevant results. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Commercial sorghum#Sorghum beer where Sorghum beer currently targets. The section has a lot of information specific to Africa. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is acceptable to me too. Come to think of it, there's enough content there that makes me think we could just have an article, albeit at African sorghum beer. And while I can't say for sure, it certainly looks like some of the current content was derived from this page's history. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (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 Nickelodeon. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nickelodeon Productions → Nickelodeon on Sunset  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

After discussing the redirect here [1], it makes no sense to have this page. No references can be found for Nickelodeon productions it self, The Nickelodeon Page only has one little mention of this the production section, however redirection to a studio (Nickelodeon on Sunset) that closed in 2017 ([2]) and was a soundstage not a production company is pretty much useless. Agentdoof (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It should not redirect to Nickelodeon on Sunset. It should either redirect to Nickelodeon (it's basically the "production" subsidiary of the latter), or be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The current, or, rather, previous, redirect since the user removed the redirect in their WP:IDONTLIKEIT persistence in wanting to delete it is the more accurate redirect, since Nickelodeon has little to no mention of the production side of things. Amaury • 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My point is Nickelodeon productions is a production company and Nickelodeon on Sunset is a Studio and the current article doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, so it should be deleted or redirected somewhere else that is a better fit for Nickelodeon productions that talks about it's shows not where shows were or are produced at. Agentdoof (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: keeping this redirect to Nickelodeon on Sunset is completely wrong – I completely agree with Agentdoof on this. It should either go to Nickelodeon, or be deleted as vague. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nickelodeon Animation Studio is also focused on production aspects. This may also be a suitable article for a retarget. ComplexRational (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a checkuser block. Politrukki (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nickelodeon. It would seem that Nickelodeon Animation Studio is less good as it only produces... well... animations. Politrukki (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. As often, it could be helpful if there were an appropriate way to incorporate this into the article. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Back Roto → Roto, New South Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, I didn't find any evidence of a connection in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see this term used anywhere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Back Roto" is a parish (a Lands administrative division in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW)) which is part of Blaxland County (a larger land administrative division). Parishes and counties in NSW are now only used for land titles and surveying purposes. That said, the parish of Back Roto certainly has legal existence - see this search on the Geographical Names Board of NSW website. Whether it requires a redirect, I will leave to greater minds than mine. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If "Back Roto" needs a redirect, this is the appropriate target. It is not obvious to me that it does any harm. It is a curious piece of naming by a 19th century bureaucrat, reminiscent of "back of Bourke".--Grahame (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment I think that the justifications provided by the two comments above are good enough for me. I agree that in the absence of anything else that Back Roto could/should point to, it's not doing any harm. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 4 October 2019 (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. The category has been deleted too. Work on the draft can continue, though potential overlap with Second Cold War needs to be considered. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• United States–Russia proxy conflict → Russia–United States relations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a recently created redirect. The target page does not mention the subject, and essentially, it seems this redirect was made to push some sort of POV. I would argue it should be deleted as useless and nonsensical, but if there is a better target, I'm not opposed to that either. RGloucester — ☎ 10:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. This could refer to any number of events, such as the Cold War, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Donbas war, etc. It is better to let the reader find what they want through Search. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the redirect author also created the eponymous category Category:United States–Russia proxy conflict. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have proposed the category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 15‎#Category:United States–Russia proxy conflict. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am creating an article based on the proxy conflict, if anyone is interested in editing this, then you are welcome. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note, there is already an article for the Second Cold War. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:38, 16 October 2019 (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. I got excited when I saw the word "sack" in the target article, but then realized it was a different kind of sack. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sack of Reggio di Calabria → Reggio Calabria#Middle Ages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Event (perpetrated by Pisa) is not mentioned at the target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:41, 12 October 2019 (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) feminist (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yang Bowen → Bowen Yang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect would make sense if Yang were Chinese. However, he is an American citizen born in America who performs in English, not Chinese. He doesn't write his name that way and neither does anyone else, so how is it a plausible search term? This redirect makes about as much sense as one to Sarah Silverman with her name typed in Hebrew letters, because she is of Jewish ethnicity. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless/until it’s needed for someone else. Yang is first generation Chinese-American. News of his being the first Chinese-American hired as SNL cast member was international headlines. Unless there is some harm in keeping this, I suggest leaving it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep harmless redirect and plausible alternative name order. Even Westerners sometimes have their names presented in the Last, First order (e.g. in indexes and directories). -Zanhe (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2019 (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 ethnic slurs#W. Retarget consensus: 100% (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• White interloper → Freddy's Fashion Mart attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Too WP:SURPRISEing and not helpful. "White interloper" has a lot of possible meanings. Some would consider all white people in South Africa or Australia to be "white interlopers". Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of ethnic slurs. Mysticair667537 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of ethnic slurs per Mysticair667537. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of ethnic slurs#W to point to the specific section where the term is described. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:34, 19 October 2019 (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.