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 find the delete arguments, that the redirect could cause harm and its former usage will not continue, convincing. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Christopher Jones (''Mayflower Captain) → Christopher Jones (Mayflower Captain) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect was created in error (see history), contains an obvious typo, is unused, and is not a likely search term. It should be deleted. Senator2029 “Talk” 17:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While this was created in error and does contain an obvious typo, it is surprisingly well used with 11-28 hits every month (I checked January-October), most commonly 20-23. This is an order of magnitude higher than can be attributed to bots alone - so it would appear to be linked from somewhere off Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The redirect had been used in the the Anthony Hopkins filmography article, so that explains the hits. That article has been corrected, so any linking issues that might prevent deletion are moot. Senator2029 “Talk” 06:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the redirect's title containing malformed usage wiki markup that has the potential to cause text immediately after the first paren to be italicized. (The redirect's title is Christopher Jones (''Mayflower Captain).) This redirect has no incoming links or edit history as an article, so this redirect should be deleted to prevent italics/bolding issues that could affect later text on a page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For same reason as Thryduulf. Mugginsx (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete improper redirect containing wikimarkup. No one would write this, as they would use a double quote instead of doubled single quotes. The activity is spurious having been linked to from an article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2014 (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. There's clearly a desire to see this as an article, though. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IC 1396 → Elephant's Trunk nebula (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

IC 1396 does not refer specifically to the Elephant's Trunk, but rather to a much larger structure around it. As such, this redirect is inaccurate and is misinforming readers. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - mentioned at target, and as far as I can tell there is currently no better target. Are there other notable features within IC 1396 which have articles that could be the basis for a disambiguation page? Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IC 1396 should be an article in its own right. A redlink would encourage article creation much more than a redirect, which would actively discourage it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So create the article and replace the redirect. We don't redlink a redirect just because an article could be created. Ivanvector (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Oh my, I hope I'm not editing this discussion incorrectly. Apologies if so (and corrections appreciated). I don't have a strong opinion either way but don't see anything explicitly inappropriate or misguiding about this redirect. As Ivanvector says, the relation is explained on the target page and seems intuitive. If there are more things it might refer to, then I suppose an ambiguation page would be appropriate, or a dedicated page of course. While I was adding this note, StringTheory11 swooped in and responded to Ivanvector. You both seem to have interesting points, but for now I opt for keep. Gamkiller (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with your comment, and thanks for providing it. Ivanvector (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and stubbify as ST11 has enough info to build a stub-out. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (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.