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) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thin Man (2015 film) → The Thin Man (film)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Thin Man (2014 film) → The Thin Man (film)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is nonsense. The film was released in 1934, not 2014/5. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's apparently in production development hell. — Gorthian (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mention of a remake/reboot on the target article. No producer or author strongly associated with the newer project. 2014 and 2015 happened already so these aren't suitable redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (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 Andrew Lang's Fairy Books#The Green Fairy Book (1892). Deryck C. 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Prince Featherhead → Andrew Lang's Fairy Books  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is a Neelix redirect that is a partial title match for one redlinked fairy tale listed in the The Green Fairy Book (1892) section (the redirect doesn't target a section), "Prince Featherhead and the Princess Celandine". If the fairy tale had an article I'd retarget it there, but as is the redirect doesn't seem to be helpful at all. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but retarget to section: Andrew Lang's Fairy Books#The Green Fairy Book (1892). It could encourage an article to be created. — Gorthian (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Usually we delete redirects to encourage article creation, and the section really doesn't have any useful information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget to section per Gorthian. Unlikely that the article will be created, and the section provides the context re: publication history of this character name that AFAIK is unique. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Gorthian AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 29 July 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adopt a user → Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While redirects from main to project space are generally discouraged they can be perfectly good redirects, and I think this is one of those cases. The adopt a user program is something is focused on helping new and inexperienced users learn Wikipedia. It is the sort of thing that users who do not know about or understand namespaces may have heard of (it's certainly the sort of thing that will get mentioned in training sessions and outreach discussions) so making it very easy for them to find is a Good Thing for the project (we need more new editors, and anything that helps recruit and retain them should be encouraged). I'm not seeing anything in Wikipedia or Google search results that this would likely get confused with so the chance of someone stumbling across this when looking for an article is very low, and the harm that would come from it if they did is also very low as it's designed to help exactly the sorts of people who would be confused by exposed internals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is a place we want newbies to find, and it's likely that new editors don't know how namespaces work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and Tavix. — Gorthian (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2016 (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) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazi war machine → Category:Military of Nazi Germany  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've left a note at WT:MILHIST asking for assistance here. Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason to delete the redirect, but I'm really not sure if there is a better target for this and I know there are people far more knowledgeable than me about the topic at the WikiProject. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't a common term, the most visits the page has had is only 7 per day and no other pages on Wikipedia link to it. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds dubious and perhaps POV. GIven the low visit rate would be fine to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per two previous comments. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 7 hits a day is a very large number for a redirect that's unlinked internally, strongly suggesting a link from somewhere external to the English Wikipedia. Also, WP:RNEUTRAL makes it clear that non-neutral redirects to neutral targets are acceptable and sometimes desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Over the past 320 days, I see an average of only 1 hit per day (using the stats link above). Seven a day may be bots. — Gorthian (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rare slang term which is not professional and not used by RS historians. Kierzek (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2016 (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) 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography of Šumadija and Western Serbia → Category:Geography of Šumadija and Western Serbia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as there is no article that really covers this and it's several clicks from Šumadija and Western Serbia to find some of the directly relevant listed articles. An article would be better, but I think the category probably serves readers better than a redlink here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to create a redlink. No articles link to it, and it's gotten all of two hits in a year; it's just not being used. And it's only two clicks from Šumadija and Western Serbia, via Category:Šumadija and Western Serbia to Category:Geography of Šumadija and Western Serbia. — Gorthian (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gorthian. Geography of Serbia should be satisfactory to anyone looking for information on the subject. I don't see why we need to get that specific, and there's no reason to retarget it since Šumadija and Western Serbia is silent on the subject (probably for good reason, since it's merely a statistical region, not a geographic one.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:33, 2 August 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Define and Describe Talk → Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles/Define and describe  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 16#Rules to consider/Confer in e-mail debate where this was considered as part of a group nomination that did not reach consensus. I closed that discussion so should probably not opine here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects such as this one and others mentioned in the previous discussion are a longstanding, historic part of this project and should be retained as such. They do no harm and might aid future historians as they record the mark and stamp this encyclopedia has made and continues to make.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the page is deleted, the move history is shown anyway so having this redirect serves no purpose in aiding historians and there is clearly harm as per my comment below, therefore no reason to keep has been presented. 86.147.34.125 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per WP:CSD#R2 as this is a redirect to the WP talk namespace. This comes up in the search before actual articles! When starting to type Defined and undefined, this came up before the actual article! Casual readers should not be sent in to the WP talk namespace. 86.147.34.125 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is in discussion, then your CSD link cannot be valid here. There is another deletion link at WP:RFD#D6 that has validity in this case. It lets us know more about these CNRs. These old ones, as noted in the previous discussion linked above, are kept to prevent link rot and for their historic qualities. The KILL CROSS-NAMESPACE REDIRECTS mindset generally applies only to recently created ones, not to these old redirects that are a long-standing part of Wikipedia history.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  10:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP. I don't want our internal content to drown out encyclopedic content. And as a 10+-year veteran of the project, I've never heard of "define and describe talk". I don't think we're talking about a core policy readers might actually benefit from a peek at. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (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 Falcon Stadium. Deryck C. 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Falcons stadium → Category:Atlanta Falcons stadiums  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. I've drafted a dab page between the three articles in the category and Falcon stadium beneath the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Falcon Stadium, the only stadium known as such. Since the team is known as the Air Force Falcons, it makes sense that someone might think the stadium is called Falcons Stadium. There's already a hatnote to the Atlanta Falcons article, just in case someone is mistaken enough to think one of the Atlanta Stadiums is known as "Falcon(s) Stadium." -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Falcon Stadium per Tyvix. I'm very uncomfortable with a dab consisting only of incorrect names when there's a sensible alternative. And "Falcons Stadium" is an entirely plausible error for Falcon Stadium. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2016 (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 Hardline (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardlines → Category:Hardlines  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hardline (disambiguation) and link the current target directly there rather than via this redirect (and/or write an article about the business term). Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hardline (disambiguation) and we can sort out things from there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2016 (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) 15:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crime in Uganda → Category:Crime in Uganda  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete per WP:REDLINK as while the CNR is perfectly fine, we really should have an article on this topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:REDLINK. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. This looks like a textbook kind of case for applying WP:REDLINK. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2016 (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 prizes, medals and awards#Business and management. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Business award → Category:Business and industry awards  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Wishva de Silva | Talk 11:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep firstly, no reason has been given in the nomination, and secondly this takes people searching for business awards to what is effectively a directory of notable business awards. Any list would just be duplicating the category. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to BDD's great find below. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again just like my earlier nominations a few days ago, all the above redirects I placed here are cross-namespace from the mainspace. Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason in itself to delete a redirect, so you must give a reason why you think each redirect should be deleted or retargetted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is to delete some of them, not purely because they are CNRs. Many of the above redirects can be made into articles, readers might expect articles when clicking into them, but instead they are merely redirects to Category or Wikipedia namespaces. I just put these here to see how the community can help. Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of prizes, medals and awards#Business and management. Obvious. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2016 (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 and hatnote. Deryck C. 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leblango → Lebilaango  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Highly unlikely search term, redirects to a one-sentence article about a small Somalian town. — Chevvin 02:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lango dialect as a plausible misspelling of the alternate name "Leb-Lango". Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget but place a hatnote to previous target The reason it might be a highly unlikely search term is that an article about a random village in Somalia is a highly unlikely thing to be looking for in the first place. However, Leblango differs from Lebilaango in the omission of the second a (a likely spelling variant) and the elision of the i. Now, I don't know anything about Somali, but our article on Somali phonology says that elision is common, and I also see the analogous Mogadishu/Muqdisho, so I'd assume that Leblango is a likely alternative spelling. Uanfala (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the hatnote is a good idea. FWIW Lebilango exists as a redirect to Lebilaango (single a to double a) and that is very likely spelling error. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the hatnotes. Leblango to Leb-Lango, and Lebilango to Lebilaango. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The creator of Lebilaango moved that page five times while putting it together, and each move left behind a redirect. So besides Leblango, there are Lebi lan go, Lebi laan go, Lebi Laan Go and, as Thryduulf mentioned, Lebilango. If even the creator of the article (who was a member of WikiProject Somalia) was that unsure of the spelling, I think all these redirects, including the one at hand, need to stay. — Gorthian (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget much more plausible. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:19, 25 July 2016 (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 stubbify, with thanks to 210.6.254.106 who did the work. JohnCD (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads → United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page has no reasonable connection to the title of the redirect. The committee named in the redirect title was an entirely different entity. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, there should be an article on this entirely different entity. We cover House committees. bd2412 T 03:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree. However, I don't have any resources to help with that. The committee is referenced here with the redirect taking the reader to the unrelated article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubbify If no one objects I'll just cut & paste the relevant paragraphs from this archives.gov page & wikify them. OTOH if someone has a good reason I shouldn't do that, then delete WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! I think that is a good solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2016 (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.