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} 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Harry on the Boat\ → Is Harry on the Boat  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 23#Google\. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Open-and-shut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:23, 7 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy/girl → Sexual intercourse  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could be an WP:XY situation for boy and girl, but the current target is clearly inappropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the established vagueness precedent set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Boy-girl. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel and per nom (WP:XY). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lets just trash this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:02, 11 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 all.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Paraguayan general election, 2018 → Elections in Paraguay  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Costa Rican general election, 2018 → Elections in Costa Rica  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ukrainian presidential election, 2019 → Elections in Ukraine  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lithuanian presidential election, 2019 → Elections in Lithuania  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Uruguayan general election, 2019 → Elections in Uruguay  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bolivian general election, 2019 → Elections in Bolivia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Slovak presidential election, 2019 → Elections in Slovakia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Salvadoran presidential election, 2019 → Elections in El Salvador  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Panamanian general election, 2019 → Elections in Panama  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Macedonian presidential election, 2019 → Elections in the Republic of Macedonia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK until a proper, sourced article on the election can be created. The redirect isn't helpful as there is nothing on this particular redirect at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Should apply to any elections in which there are no substantial content or sources announcing early items such as the date of the election and the process for registering for candidacy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too far in the future to have even stubs. — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 7 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Gasol → Pau Gasol  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

His name isn't Paul. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Recent searches show 5-50 hits a day under the typo of Paul. Google search immedately maps it to Pau Gasol without questions asked. Granted it is nothing close to his 20k hits on the 4th.[1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an entirely plausible misspelling. The Los Angeles Lakers Encyclopedia even made this error. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that this is EN WP and Paul is such a common English name while Pau is not. The spelling/typo error is plausible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 6 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 Magnetosphere#Earth's magnetosphere.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Magnetosphere of Earth → Earth's magnetic field  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The magnetosphere is not the same as the magnetic field. The redirect should be left as a redlink so that an article about it can be created in the future. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Magnetosphere#Earth's magnetosphere. Another possibility is Earth's magnetic field#Magnetosphere, but the former choice has the advantage of being in an article on magnetospheres in general. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit confusing considering that the section retarget has a hatnote "Main" to Earth's magnetic field. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote should probably be changed to see also. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Earth's magnetic field#Magnetosphere, since there seems to be a more detailed description there, and there's a hatnote to Magnetosphere if more info is wanted. If someone uses "magnetosphere of Earth" as a link or a search term, it seems to me they would be after Earth's magnetosphere in particular instead of magnetospheres in general. The subject could be made into its own article, but until it is, I'd rather there be a redirect to what we have available instead of a redlink. — Gorthian (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Earth's magnetic field#Magnetosphere per Gorthian. The description seems to be a better choice for someone searching without necessary a general idea about the subject. PaleAqua (talk) 03:49, 7 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. As the keep comments reference the "Gameplay" section and there were no objections to PaleAqua's suggestion, I have chosen to refine target to that section. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee → Super Smash Bros. Melee  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The information identified by the redirect is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep page mentions that there are some stages in the gameplay section.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete someone looking under this title would be expecting a list of the 29 actual stages, not a paragraph that says it has 29 stages. Not a game guide. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the target does have a paragraph on stage design under gameplay, as well as a mentio in the lede, reception section, and a mention in the sequel section on how some stages were incorporated into the sequel. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone can find information on Stages within the game at the target. I wouldn't expect a list of stages unless the redirect was more explicit (eg: "List of stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would retargeting to #Gameplay make sense? As noted above the second paragraph is primarily about stages and has a citation that lead to information about the stages. PaleAqua (talk) 03:57, 7 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 United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85). Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• United Kingdom by-elections, 1876 → Birmingham by-election, 1876  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is nonsense. There were about 20 by-elections in the UK in 1876, and most of them didn't happen in Belfast ... yet this redirects to a page which covers only one of them: Birmingham by-election, 1876. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or Redirect to List of United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85). I'm cautious about the latter method as that would just encourage hundreds of shortcut redirects to clutter up search, one for every year, dab pages for two for years in which there were elections to two editions of Parliament like 1715 or 1950. Someone searching under List of United Kingdom by-elections would notice the year ranges. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85), where the user can search for the 1876 byelection(s) they are looking for. The shortcuts and DAB pages mentioned by AngusWOOF would helpful regardless of how these lists of UK byelections are structured. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:59, 7 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. 20:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• United Kingdom by-elections, 1814 → Belfast (UK Parliament constituency)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is nonsense. There were several by-elections in the UK in 1814, and most of them didn't happen in Belfast ... yet this redirects to Belfast (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or Redirect to List of United Kingdom by-elections (1806–18). I'm cautious about the latter method as that would just encourage hundreds of redirects, one for every year, dab pages for two for years in which there were elections to two editions of Parliament like 1715 or 1950. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of United Kingdom by-elections (1806–18), where the user can search for the 1876 byelection(s) they are looking for. The shortcuts and DAB pages mentioned by AngusWOOF would helpful regardless of how these lists of UK byelections are structured. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:59, 7 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 no consensus. While no consensus outcomes are not ideal this has already been relisted once without gaining any further input, so another relisting will likely just be a waste of time. If someone wants to create a disambiguation then this can be done as a normal editorial action subject to the usual requirements for such pages. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A Burning Soul (song) → The King of Whys  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• A Burning Soul → The King of Whys  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged these two nominations together due to their similar nature and titles. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or disambiguate (or set-indexify?) both. A Burning Soul (song) could easily be confused with the song "Burning Soul," which was released as a single by the Japanese band Matenrou Opera in 2015. A Burning Soul also will likely lead to confusion; The Flames released an album called Burning Soul! in 1967, Artur Adson released a collection of poems called The Burning Soul in 1917 (see Siuru), and I am sure there are other potentially similar titles that I am missing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/disambiguate per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, but create a disambiguation page per Notecardforfree at burning soul, and add hatnotes. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is the only song entitled "A Burning Soul." WP:SMALLDETAILS are enough to distinguish between distinct topics and we don't disambiguate unless there's other topics on Wikipeida with the name and/or genuine potential for confusion, which I'm not seeing here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 2 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chestnut-leafed → Ulmus castaneifolia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Ambiguous for chestnut-leaved oak and chestnut-leafed elm (and some other plants not on Wikipedia). Partial title match, not really appropriate as a disambiguation page. Neelix creation. Plantdrew (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support set-indexification per Plantdrew. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would oppose set-indexification per WP:PTM and precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red-knobbed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as with pot-bellied PTM. No coverage of chestnut-leafed as a single term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if there are only two articles this applies to on Wikipedia and a few more that are without articles, thus being easy to complete and maintain (two of the major concerns at the AfD), a set-index would still be of arguable benefit over showing search results and can be done without extensive research into these PTMs. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 12 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SAINT LOUIS MO 631xx → St. Louis  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RCAPS and and implausible search term. "631xx" appears to be an area code ZIP code range, but St. Louis also uses 630xx. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ZIP code range, not area code range, but agree with Tavix as an implausible search term. Plantdrew (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unlikely search term. No such television show either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is implausible.  ONR  (talk)  17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lets just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:24, 7 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.