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) 21:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox:User → Template:Infobox Wikipedia user  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Infobox:person → Template:Infobox person  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

CNR to non-reader content. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has even a remote argument why anyone would ever search for these with the expectation of finding an article, this is a deletion nomination which seems to be somewhat lacking in WP:COMMONSENSE. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steel1943's point below, as from article space these are still cross namespace redirects. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rubbish computer: Right: "Infobox" is not a namespace, but these are cross-namespace redirects. (I'm responding to your edit notice.) They are all in the "(Article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep: violates XNR on the face of it, but going by TimothyJosephWood's reasoning, no reasonable person would search in the Infobox space for an article. Mihirpmehta (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an Infobox namespace, according to Wikipedia:Namespace. This is just in the article namespace, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, these are pseudo-namespace redirects, but not one listed at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes and as there is no other general precedent regarding "Infobox:" redirects I am aware of they need to be judged against on their individual merits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both since "Infobox:" is not a community-approved pseudo-namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Fortunately, we don't need to hand this over to Congress to make a final decision. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College → Electoral College (United States)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SOAPBOX biased name. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can't see why anybody would search for this instead of just searching "U.S. electoral college". Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not see how it falls afoul of SOAPBOX to assert that something has pros and cons. It would be another matter if the page was simply "Pros of ..." or "Cons of ..." Mihirpmehta (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible search term. Neutrality^talk 05:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and refine to section Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary issues, which has subsections "Criticism" and "Support". That being said there are no internal links and hits are a little less than 1 a day, including the spike caused by this listing. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unlikely search term DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine section per Si Trew. If a user wants to look up pros and cons of the Electoral College, that section is what they're looking for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Provided that we refine what section that we go to, I guess I can see the argument for keeping this redirect. I don't feel that strongly about it, though, and deletion would be somewhat alright with me as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't contain a pro and con list, nor should it. The "pros and cons" of the system are relative, and are not constrained to present times. Moreover, "Con" shouldn't be capitalized.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do see it as a plausible search term, and/or an inappropriate content fork that somebody might very well try to create as a new standalone article if it wasn't already directing people to an existing topic — in point of fact, the edit history reveals that somebody did once try to create a POV fork essay, debating the pros and cons of the electoral college system, at this very title. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat and Si Trew. I'm neutral regarding refining to the section that Si suggests. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Godsy. The target does not contain a Pro and Con list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary issues per Si Trew where the pros and cons of the system are discussed. IT's a plausible search term.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• United States of the United States → Electoral College (United States)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Makes zero sense. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of states and territories of the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. really implausible search term. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems totally useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Somebody thought this made sense? Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. If we were to keep this for some reason, then we should retarget it to U.S. state, which is the current target of States Of The United States. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Spane → Spain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

wikt:spane this is actually a word so it may be unhelpful. Maybe soft redirect to that entry. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify. Draft available below redirect. I'm not sure if a link should be included to wean, which is the primary meaning of the old dialectal word "spane". – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Uanfala. Add Spain as a "not to be confused" or a "see also" link. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Uanfala. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Booke → Book  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't imagine someone searching this to find the book article. Propose retargeting to Sorrell Booke or otherwise dabify if there are other notable individuals with this surname. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget to Sorrell Booke. An ((intitle)) search for "Booke" turns up Sorrell Booke, two obsolete spellings of "book" (My Ladye Nevells Booke and A Proper Newe Booke of Cokerye), and this redirect, only. Narky Blert (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. A little over a year ago Wikipedians failed to arrive at a consensus regarding this redirect. After multiple relistings this time there is still no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillary Diane → Hillary Clinton  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY and WP:PTM. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP until there is ambiguity regarding this redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. More first and middle name usage that is supposed by the redirect creator rather than actual news sources or self-referencing. No regular usage of this as with Lisa Marie. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, her middle name is rarely used and I would see no practical reason to search this term. MB298 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my stance to Keep after reading the previous discussion. MB298 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that is what the reader is looking for, her common name is the name of the article, and I can't imagine why anyone will search for just this. Barack Hussein does not exist (my bad, nominated that one, didn't do WP:BEFORE). It is harmful in the way that it encourages creation of similar redirects such as Donald John etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PTM. Secretary Clinton is not known as "Hillary Diane". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:Redirects from given names, Template:R from given name, Given name#Multiple given names, All pages with titles beginning with Hillary Diane and not other person by that name combination to be found elsewhere. --SI 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PTM, not a common synonym. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-WP:COMMONNAME WP:PTM. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Hillary Diane Clinton was born Hillary Diane Rodham" on biography.com as example we see this is the common element of both her birth and current names. Redirects are cheap and it is a waste of time to talk about deleting this as it enhances searching and does no harm. If we locate anyone else notable with the forename pairing we could expand it into a disambiguation. Ranze (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nowhere near a common use. "I've never heard it used" isn't particularly helpful with the subject of your average Wikipedia biography, but Hillary Rodham Clinton's been in the US news almost constantly for a quarter century, and the total absence of its use in my experience is significant, unless my experience is drastically atypical; if you can show that it is, I'll withdraw this vote. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no reason to have an article based on her middle name. If you want to have Hillary Diane Clinton, ok. But not Hillary Diane. Hillary Diane is a real person, not related to the Clinton or Rodham families. Kellymoat (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it keeps getting re-listed and new input added every time, but the deletes are out voting the keeps 2-to-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. We've had this since 2007, it's never pointed to anyone else, and there don't seem to be any other notable uses even if it is a partial match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Copied from previous discussion because nothing has changed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't really see a plausible reason why anybody looking for Hillary Clinton would type this to get there. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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, retarget to Citizenship of the United States, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• American citizenship → Citizenship of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• US Citizenship → United States nationality law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• US citizenship → Citizenship of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure which target is better. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep other than the spelling mismatch redirect . Should rather point to Citizenship of the United States article. Devopam (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• All should point to Citizenship of the United States. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - retarget if necessary. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the second to match the first and third, per above. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the second to match the first and third, per above. Tmbg37 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first and third and retarget the second to match the same target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Airline destinations → Airport#External links  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Well, the section exists and is what you'd expect but.... this is a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have Category:Lists of airline destinations but not as an article, and I would oppose a CNR there. Not sure if it is necessary to create a list out of those lists. Maybe not, per WP:NOTDIR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before 2009 (with this edit) it targeted Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists, which I'd oppose retargeting back as that jumps from reader-facing space into editor space (does it? WikiProjects somewhat straddle those two spaces). But I'm not opposed to retargeting it to the category, since categories are in reader-facing space. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects#Arguments_for_keeping_CNRs #8 may be relevant, i.e. because of the history (I realise that page is just an essay). But Weak delete as it's hardly used (spike to 30 hits on 20 November for some reason; no links in mainspace) and is a near-WP:PTM for lots of articles that include "Airline destinations" (which Special:Search?search=Airline+destinations happily finds for the top search results). Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. Every flight has a destination ... at least that's the plan upon takeoff. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 and retarget to Ekaterina Sedia, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kubbestol → Chair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sedia → Chair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to these languages. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not per WP:EN . Devopam (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Retarget sedia to Ekaterina Sedia as ((R from surname)) and add a wiktionary box. Delete the other per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 21:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Warehouse party → Acid house  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect this to Rave instead, because that would probably be a better target. In the alternative, just delete it. The connection between source and target is totally unclear as it stands.Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see the use of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the connection is not clear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Rave, which uses the term "warehouse" 22 times to indicate a common venue, and "warehouse party" and "warehouse parties" outright in a couple of places. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that "warehouse party" is synonymous with "rave." Jehochman and SimonTrew, have you found sources that treat these terms as synonyms? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 20:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Natalie Imbruglia (band) → Natalie Imbruglia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading disambiguator, not a band. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete misleading. Devopam (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rob Zombie has famously said that yes he is a person, but when he is on stage he is in a band that happens to share the same name, and he would like people to distinguish between the two identities. And Alice Cooper has often done interviews and had to ask the interviewer which Alice he was asking. So, while the Natalie Imbriglia band page redirects to the personal page, there are people who will want info on the band and not the person. Without the redirect, they may be on the hunt for, or willing to create, a band page. Kellymoat (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't even the need for any disambiguator in this case, let alone an incorrect one, people will get what they are looking for as the article covers multiple identities. We do not have other similar redirects like this for it may be too POV-pushing. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly don't want separate articles, but I see nothing wrong with keeping the redirect alive. However, I would point out that Alice Cooper has 3 pages. The man (which includes his personal life and his music/band), the original band, and a personnel page for the solo act.Kellymoat (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a separate issue not to be discussed at RFD. If you have any concerns please raise them on that article's talk page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, no, I am not complaining. I actually prefer that some of these things have separate articles because they are separate entities that should have separate entries. I was just pointing out that it is not unheard of to have a band and personal page. In this case, Natalie Imbriglia, I voted to keep the redirect because they are separate entities even though it is not worth two separate articles. Afterall, isn't that why we use redirects. Kellymoat (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and scrutinize the contribs of the redirect's creator - they created several of these unnecessary (band) redirects. We have ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) but I don't see this as being a likely search at all. Might be useful in cases where a person's stage persona is notably separate from their individual persona, as is the case with Alice Cooper and Rob Zombie as noted above, even if we don't have separate articles, but there's no indication of that being the case with Natalie Imbruglia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'll grant Alice Cooper as a case where there is an obvious context for "Alice Cooper the band" as a separate topic from "Alice Cooper né Vincent Furnier the person" — for one thing, "Alice Cooper" was originally the name of the band and not the name of the person; it became the name of the person only several albums later, after the band gave up on trying to correct people about "Alice Cooper means the band and not Vincent". But that's also a case where Alice Cooper and Alice Cooper (band) are actually already two separate standalone articles, and does not demonstrate the need for every musician who happens to be billed as a solo artist to have a redirect from "Name (band)" back to "Name" just because she's technically also the leader of an eponymous "band" of session musicians. If there were somehow legitimate grounds for "Natalie Imbruglia the band" to have a separate article from "Natalie Imbruglia the person", then this would be the correct title for that — but there's no need for it to exist as a redirect back to Natalie Imbruglia the person. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• რუსული ენა → Russian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Georgian. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Not per WP:EN Devopam (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 High German languages. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• HighGerman → German language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

On several occasions this has indeed targeted High German languages but there has never been a discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a no-brainer. It's a camel case redirect that's existed since 2001, so we should keep it around. High German has been a redirect to High German languages for over a decade, so this should point to the same article. Retarget. - Eureka Lott 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to High German languages. I've marked as ((R from CamelCase)). Incidentally, LowGerman was also created in 2001 and I've marked that the same: it targets Low German. I wonder if that should be moved over Low German language as we generally, but not exclusively, have language articles ending in "language"(s), but that's partly to disambiguate a language from a people, culture, given name etc so it's not strictly necessary. Middle German is a DAB, we don't have MiddleGerman. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Si Trew. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Молдовеняскэ language → Moldovan language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mixed language title, not a likely search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not just mixed languages, but mixed alphabets. IMO "not a likely search term" is an underestimate - I cannot see anyone, ever, searching for this. Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. We don't even have plain молдовеняскэ, a far more likely redirect. (I imagine someone will create it now, unnecessarily.) Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it seems very unlikely that somebody would type one word in Moldovan and the next in English. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Twttr → Twitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Smbdy hs brkn kybrd gn. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Neutral) - ...not according to the section Twitter#Creation and initial reaction of the target article, in which this exact spelling is mentioned as a working title. The redirect should probably be retargeted to that specific section if kept. I agree that there are some doubts about the redirect's usefulness as a search term, which is why I am neutral. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SoledadKabocha. Nothing to do with a broken keyboard. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about the broken keyboard was a joke, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_5#Str_wrs. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per SoledadKabocha - it's not inconceivable to look for a company (or a band...) using a formerly used name. Mihirpmehta (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per users above. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't believe this even being discussed - its an empty crisp packet drifting on a cold breeze along a deserted street in Siberia - in midwinter - useless. Mark^Dask 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from former name)), probably refine to section as above. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a former name. It's mentioned in the first public tweet. (For a good cringe, look up the original twttr logo.) - Eureka Lott 14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the service's original name, clearly useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from former name)) per those above.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 20:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Touiteur → Twitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obscure synonym, not plausible. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not per WP:EN. Devopam (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has got nothing to do with WP:EN. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)`[reply]

It does if you think that redirects should generally follow [{WP:TITLE]] (with obvious exceptions for lots of specific categories). Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not at target. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. fr:Touiteur redirects to fr:Twitter (but it's not mentioned there either). This seems to be a former name of an app called "Plume for Twitter" (see this blog entry) but we don't seem to have any info on EN:WP about it (not at List_of_Twitter_services_and_applications or in Category:Twitter_services_and_applications, for example, though I did a general search too). Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Google indicates that a francophone female Twitterer might be a Touiteuse. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it seems very unlikely "Twitter" would be searched for in French, a foreign language with no primary affinity to the topic. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Telautomaton → Robot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obscure search term, misleading. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This term appears to have a clear-cut primary usage to refer to Tesla's 1898 concept of a radio controlled boat (see here). This seems to be a case of WP:REDLINK. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. I think we can all agree that "Alien sideboob" is not a synonym for the game itself, so the question becomes whether there will be information on the phrase at the target article. Given a comment on the talk page, its recent removal as noted here, and the fact that the target article is a GA, I judge that the article is considered stable without such information. Restoration of this redirect would be appropriate iff consensus could be built to include the information. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alien sideboob → Mass Effect (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable meme, not mentioned in target, unlikely search candidate Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This did make me giggle, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete out of context. Devopam (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Devopam: The context was removed in a good faith edit, and since restored. –xeno^talk 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously kept at RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Alien_sideboob. Mention of the meme was removed in this edit. It gets some pageviews, but not really that many. –xeno^talk 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've restored the context and retargeted the redirect back to the section to which it was intended. Keep. –xeno^talk 14:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The restoration was reverted.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore content. This particularly phrase is basically exclusively used to refer to the sex controversy for Mass Effect. I don't think there's any other target. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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