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 first, retarget the other two to Bulma. I do enjoy the brief mentions pun, intentional or not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulma’s Mother → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bulma's Mother → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Mrs. Briefs → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No coverage of this character, outside of a couple of brief mentions in other articles that don't justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the second and third ones listed, but retarget to Bulma, since this character is not mentioned at the current target article. Delete Bulma’s Mother; surely we don't need two separate redirects, one for the name with a regular apostrophe, one for the name with a curly apostrophe! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget the latter two to Bulma per MelanieN. We could delete the latter, but could just as well tag it with ((R avoided double redirect)). Either way, we should prefer either "Bulma's Mother" or "Mrs. Briefs" as the authoritative redirect for the character, tagging the other one or two that aren't deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 13 June 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. kingboyk (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album) → Take 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Insufficient content within target article to warrant a redirect. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep typically information about albums was removed from artist's pages because it cluttered up the page. In this case the album article was deleted. The album charted. It is a very plausible search term. As the track listing is verifiable and is relevant to the main topic, frankly the track info should be added to the Take 6 article, or the article should be recreated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirects are cheap, and this one was created by consensus in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 5 June 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. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gholamhossein Azhari → Gholam Reza Azhari  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this redirect was created by a move in March 2007, rectifying an "incorrect name". there seems to be no continuing reference to the wrong name and "Gholamhossein Azhari" appears nowhere in WP, so this redirect is just junk. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:51, 1 June 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. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fourth Modi ministry (Gujarat) → Modi ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is a dab listing Modi's other ministries but we have no article on this topic. Possible targets include 2012 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election and Gujarat Legislative Assembly but we should probably delete the redirect. Certes (talk) 12:42, 1 June 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. kingboyk (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Miss Universo → Miss Universe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary per WP:RFOREIGN, suggesting deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((r from typo)). "e" and "o" are next to each other on the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout. - Paul^T+/_C 13:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems a bit too obscure to warrant a redirect. Geolodus (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obscure typo, and could even be considered a mix of two different languages, which also does not make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely typo if that's all it is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:59, 1 June 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. kingboyk (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian terrrorism → Palestinian political violence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Implausible typo and unused, but created in 2005. Also Palestinian terrorism already exists. Julia ☺ 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from typo))/WP:RTYPO and the fact that it has existed since 2005 (WP:R#KEEP#4). It is WP:CHEAP to keep. - Paul^T+/_C 21:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many r's. bd2412 T 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete implausible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:50, 1 June 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) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN → Journal of the American Society of Nephrology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN → Journal of the American Society of Nephrology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, anyone using this search term by definition knows the actual name of the subject. The redirect has no usage since its creation, I would recommend deletion. convinced by arguments made for keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 04:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, no objection. Don't exactly remember why I created it. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recently-created and not useful. There was one page that was using the term in a reference that has since been updated to remove the initials and now has no inbound links. - Paul^T+/_C 15:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is the name of the journal as reported by at least one citation database, and will therefore appear in our citations (especially those filled with tools like User:Citation bot or WP:REFTOOLBAR). See WP:JCW/J58, for instance, where it is used at least 21 times on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have created Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN, but if the above is deleted, so should this one. But really neither should be deleted. They could be marked as ((R from typo))/((R from misnomer))/((R from database title)) or whatever, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I went ahead and tagged that redirect and merged it into this discussion so it doesn't get overlooked in the event the consensus is to delete these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several other such redirects exist. Those help readers that copy-paste things from a database, or look things up from a citation containing the extra ": JASN" part, but they also greatly facilitate cleanup since they will show up on the various subpages of WP:JCW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I don't disagree that anyone using this knows the journal name, but it's very easy to imagine someone copying and pasting it from a citation. Yeah, they could just copy part of it and paste that, but forcing them to do so feels gratuitous. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: it's not a only that, but also that having the redirects greatly facilitates cleanup. For another example, if you check entry #257 in WP:JCW/Target3 (Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences), you see it picked up 874 citations. However, now that I created 'Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences : CMLS' as a redirect, it the next time the bot will run, it will pick up several related entries (search for "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences" in WP:JCW/C14). Those would get listed at WP:JCW/Target3, and, since they would get listed, they would get cleaned up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we do not need to include every possible typo. @Headbomb: I am not sure what the lists of citations are, but doesn't a search for "Journal of the American Society of Nephrology" include everything that searching for "Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN" does? I mean, I see Sharon Anderson, Jochen Reiser, Vlado Perkovic, Sodium-chloride symporter on both searches. If you are counting citations, I'm afraid by having the redirects you are counting some twice. - Nabla (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nabla: The point is that without those redirects, if you look at entry 842 in WP:JCW/Target9, you have

with those redirects, you would have (total citation count not updated)

and would additionally pick things up like |journal=Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (JASN) if they were used. If the redirects get deleted, then whoever would be looking at WP:JCW/Target3 would be unaware that 24 articles cited Journal of the American Society of Nephrology as |journal=Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN or |journal=Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN. And because they would be undetected, they would remain cited as such, rather than get cleaned up and normalized to the proper |journal=Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

I have cleaned up the existing uses, but because those come from database entries, new citations will be introduced in Wikipedia with the '...: JASN' part. And, if those redirects are deleted, these new uses would go undetected, and remain uncleaned up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another example, without the Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences : CMLS redirect, entry #257 in WP:JCW/Target3 looks like

with that redirect, this would be (total citation count not updated)

Knowing that these are used lets us clean them up, and whenever a ': CMLS' variant gets used in the future, this will get detected. Deleting that redirect will make it that much harder to detect these cases, because anyone looking at WP:JCW/Target3 would not know about those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: thank you for thorough and (I think) clear explanation. So the redirects are used to cleanup typos, right? That would be my second guess. I am all for keeping things as tidy as possible (at work I am the guy who always wants everything in its proper place...), but where do you stop? The "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences" is a terrible example. Would you create a indefinite number of redirects, as typos come along? Cellular, Celular, Celullar, Celluler, Molecular, Moulecular, Moleculr, Live, Liff, Lif, ... I think it is a very worthy effort but it needs some better tool, I doubt creating a indefinite number of redirects is good. Aren't there some bot able to do fuzzy search? Or maybe create a list of rules (regexes maybe?) so that database search catches them? Say, (without much thought to get it really good) searching for a regex like "cellular and molecular life sciences[ :(]*cmls" would catch most of the variants above. - Nabla (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabla: actually it's a great example, because with that one redirect, all the other redlinks I posted above would be picked up. And all your typos that you've added there would also be picked up, but that would already be the case. The difference here is that adding ': CMLS' is too different from the base 'Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences', so it doesn't find the ones with the 'CMLS' at the end. But with this redirect, it would also find 'Celular and Molecular Life Science (CMLS)' because that's close enough to 'Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences : CMLS'.

And lastly, you also forget that this isn't a run off the mill typo. This is the name of the journal as found in one (or more) citation databases. It will pop up again in |journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: again, thank you, though this time I am not so sure that I understood you. Still, two points: If this is the official name, than the article should be under this name, and the other(s) should be redirect(s). Two, no matter how people may say redirects are cheap, I can not believe that creating enourmous quantities of similar redirects is a good thing, it will most likely blow in our faces later on (I might be wrong - as always... :-) - and this is one of those case in which I *really* might, but still that's my conviction) - Nabla (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabla: It is not the 'official name', it's the name as listed in a database. Database have errors, or follow their own conventions. There's no need to create zillions of such ': ABCD' redirects, one per journal (which has a corresponding ': ABCD' entry in a database somewhere) is all that's needed for every other one to get picked up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: OK... if we do not need more than one, why keep these two? Why not keep only one? - Nabla (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• JCW only needs one. But both spacing variants will be common, and WP:CHEAP applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Headbomb convincingly shows the utility of these redirects, which are WP:CHEAP, and nobody gives a good reason how these redirects would somehow break the wiki. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - people copying and pasting are likely to use the full title as listed in their source. We should should have links that work, and also, we should make it easy for people to find articles. (Someone copying the name into the search bar might not think to delete the end portion when the longer name doesn't yield a result. Better to have extra redirects than to make it harder for people to find the right article, or to find the needed cleanup. LadyofShalott 00:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think Headbomb has demonstrated that this and other journal titles like it should be kept and would support adding it as a type of redirect listed at WP:RPURPOSE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added here. Can be removed if the outcome of this discussion is the other way around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 13 June 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. Deryck C. 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangenziale Kennedy → Tangenziale di Bologna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article, I couldn't find any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target online. Delete, unless someone can find evidence that this is a name that is used. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not home and I can't find proper proof. The name is locally used (I'm from Bologna) and a simple Google search returns some examples of informal usage, for instance [1]. --Fabio Bettani (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• N.b., it's not mentioned in the article's equivalent on the Italian Wikipedia either. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It looks to be correct at a glance, but I don't have a source to add anything and I don't know Italian which makes that task difficult. Typing "Tangenziale Kennedy" into Google Maps takes me to Tangenziale nord di Bologna. it:Bolognina mentions a tangenziale "J.F. Kennedy", which links to the same article that it:Tangenziale di Bologna does. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment I think the provided evidence is enough to justify keeping the redirect, as it's not like there's some other Tangenziale Kennedy that would make this redirect confusing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 13 June 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. I'm closing this to "no consensus" after attempting to get clarification on this discussion by relisting, but no further input was provided after at least a week. Most of the opinions contained "B" as a high choice, but either way, a "no consensus" close has the same result as "B". I would recommend that if this is renominated, rather than providing multiple options, the nominator should state what they believe should happen above all else while trying to avoid mentioning alternatives so that other editors can voice their own opinions without being figuratively locked into options and rankings. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Freaks → Freak (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The discussion at Talk:Freaks (1932 film)#Requested move 12 May 2019 was closed with clear consensus that the 1932 film isn't the primary topic but no clear consensus if Freak is. Possible options are:

• A convert Freaks into a DAB page listing Freak and the uses of "Freaks" (and removing them from Freak (disambiguation)). I don't think combining the DAB is a good idea since apart from the article on the person (at Freak) the topics probably wouldn't be referred to interchangeably (like Fred Smith/Frederick Smith) this is because if you're looking for Freaks (1932 film) you're going to enter "Freaks" (not "Freak") but if you're looking for Freak (film) you going to enter "Freak" (not "Freaks").
• B leave Freaks as a redirect to Freak (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE.
• C redirect Freaks to Freak as a ((R from plural)) per WP:PLURALPT and create a Freaks (disambiguation), same as A but Freak is primary for the plural to. While I do generally favour primary topics (such as Smiles and Ovens) given that there are quite a few things (that get quite a few views) with the plural I don't think that its the best idea to redirect the plural in this case and also per User:Andrewa/Incoming links. That said the person is clearly primary by PT#2 and anyone arriving at the person from the plural wouldn't be surprised and media with that title likely invokes the person. Over at Commons, Commons:Category:Freaks (1932 film) is a sub category of Commons:Category:Freaks so it could be argued that the person article is kind of a broad concept article but that's probably going a bit too far.
• D redirect Freaks to Freak as a ((R from plural)) but no separate Freaks (disambiguation) (which redirects to Freak (disambiguation), same as B but Freak is primary for the plural to).

Please indicate you're options by putting A, B, C or D per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The utility and accuracy of ranked surveys or even list you're preferred outcomes in order such as "B, A, D, C". @Randy Kryn, Netoholic, In ictu oculi, Paintspot, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and BD2412: who participated in the RM. Note that I changed the redirect to Freak (disambiguation) pending the outcome of the discussion since its clear at least that the 1932 film isn't primary but there are still 21 mainspace links that need fixing (I fixed the others) if anyone knows what the target is for them that would be appreciated.

• A, B, C, D per my points made in the options and at the RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• D. "Freaks" is primarily the plural of "Freak", with things called "Freaks" generally intending to invoke "Freak". I don't see the need for a separate disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• B, A, ... ... ... .... D, C." I agree, I don't think it's the best idea to redirect the plural to Freak. Incoming links show that "Freak" isn't what most people look for when they type or link "Freaks". They typically refer to one of the things on the dab page. When in doubt of primary topic, it's best to disambiguate. Also, the dab pages probably shouldn't be separated, but that's less of an issue - I really don't think "Freaks" should redirect to the person. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• B or D (not A or C). Whatever the ultimate target for Freaks (Freak or Freak (disambiguation); I don't see a huge difference either way, but with a slight preference for disambiguation per Paintspot), there should not be a separate DAB page for "Freaks" and Freaks (disambiguation) should redirect to the combined DAB page at Freak (disambiguation). - Paul^T+/_C 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• B+D. (1) Keep Freaks as a redirect to Freak Freak (disambiguation) per WP:PLURAL. (2) Create Freaks (disambiguation) as a redirect to Freak Freak (disambiguation) per WP:CHEAP.

I think I fixed all the remaining inlinks to Freaks: all but two were intended for the 1932 film; one needed a new entry on the DAB page and the other a redlink. Narky Blert (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: B was to redirect Freaks to Freak (disambiguation) as opposed to Freak. I'm assuming that for (1) you meant to say "(1) Keep Freaks as a redirect to Freak (disambiguation) per WP:PLURAL". Could you please clarify if you're 1st choice is for (B) to keep "Freaks" as redirect to "Freak (disambiguation)" or (D) make "Freaks" a redirect to "Freak". Yes even if we do B then Freaks (disambiguation) should still redirect to Freak (disambiguation). Thanks for fixing the remaining links, I thought that they were probably for the 1932 film but I wasn't sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Correct, and corrected. Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A, B, C, D. Readers may well be seeking the 1932 film. A also makes misdirected links easier to find and fix, which helps us to help our readers. Similar plurals are being discussed at RfD May 25#Ospreys. Certes (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A or B. Google search results are all over the map with regards the topic - Freaks (1932 film), Freaks (2019 film), Freak, Freaks (Pulp album), Freaks (band) and various topics that don't immediately obviously map to an article (a short film based on a song, a Morris dance group, characters in a video game, a book, a record label, and others). None of these are anywhere approaching a primary topic, so readers should arrive at a dab page. Whether that's Freak (disambiguation) or a separate one is less important. Franks (disambiguation) should not be a red link though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 27 May 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 Restore article. The "delete" vote in the discussion was essentially a WP:REDLINK vote, and the nomination seems be due to lack of information in the target. Restoring the article resolved both concerns. (No prejudice against nominating the restored article for WP:AFD though, if anyone considers that route.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wayne Davison → Rn (newsreader)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect target has virtually no information about the subject, I can't imagine this being useful and would recommend deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wayne Davidson is known for other things, such as the original changes for unified diff (ymmv) TEDickey (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons TEDickey cites make me think we should treat this the same as minor-league athletes who are mentioned in multiple places: delete to allow creation of an article if the person is really notable. Just choosing one place he's mentioned would be arbitrary and make it harder for users to find the others (cf. WP:XY). --BDD (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article. There was an article on Davison that was deleted per A7 back in 2013. I think that developing noteworthy things like unified diff and trn would be a credible claim of significance and should not have been speedy deleted. I'm not sure if he's notable or not, but I feel an AfD discussion would be better a better place to decide that. I'll undelete the history behind the redirect so non-admins can see what I'm talking about and make their own decision. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 30 May 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.