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} 01:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomas Wood (Yorkshire cricketer) → Thomas Wood (cricketer, born 1994)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as inaccurate. Redirect created from page move, but subject has never played cricket for, or is from, Yorkshire. Jellyman (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I did a cursory search to see if there were other cricketers with the same name from Yorkshire, but I couldn't find any. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Neither of the two Thomas Wood cricketers are related to Yorkshire. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 10 November 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 almost called this no consensus and said "see you in a few months" in the close. Then I realized the absurdity of the situation and decided to crush the can instead of kicking it down the road. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game) → The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page is unneeded, as The Legend of Zelda (2017 video game) takes care of the redirect, and this redirect's name isn't descriptive enough of which The Legend of Zelda video game article it could redirect to. For example, a new LoZ game could be announced and an article created for it, but this redirect may still redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. — Gestrid (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect isn't inaccurate ... yet. This redirect should be renominated after the game is released. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please, per WP:COSTLY. I'm fairly strongly opposed to redirects of this format as they'll quickly exhaust any (marginal) usefulness they have once the game/film/etc. is released. Instead of kicking the can down the road, let's take out the trash now while we're already here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A little background on this redirect: This is a redirect leftover from a page move. Originally, the page resided at The Legend of Zelda (2015 video game), then it was moved to "2016 video game". Later, the creator of the game announced that they were no longer aiming for a 2016 release date. Because of that, we moved the page to "upcoming video game" then later "2017 video game" when that was confirmed, and then to where it site today after the E3 title reveal. — Gestrid (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. At this point, Breath of the Wild is still the upcoming Zelda. We could possibly change the redirect to the series main article The Legend of Zelda, but it would suggest there is another game possibly "upcoming". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am persuaded by Tavix's argument. This sort of limited-time crystal ball redirects are best deleted once a better title for the article is found. Deryck C. 18:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, I also think that we should be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel1943. It's an entirely valid redirect, and while there may be a cost, it seems like a useful one to maintain for readers. Maybe it'll be possible to get a bot to automatically nominate redirects of this type if the current date is past the release date parameter of the article's infobox? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:43, 17 November 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, default to keep. Deryck C. 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Capeside → Dawson's Creek#Filming_locations  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In addition to the location in the show, it is apparently the name of at least one musical artist (not sure if notable or not). This redirect is linked at Soundwave (Australian music festival) and is mentioned in this context at Siegfried Meier, The Rescue (Horsell Common album) and other pages. It is also mentioned at Bird Town so my concern is if someone will search for the term in one of these contexts they will be mislead. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep news searches affirm Capeside for Dawson's Creek as primary topic, with the Austalian band being local. But Cape side (with space in between) refers to multiple football, rugby and other sports clubs in the Cape town region. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I never denied there was a primary topic, and I never actually heard of that band until I discovered those pages, but think about it, if anyone was reading any of those articles and want to know what it means, and searches it in the search box, what are we offering them by providing an article on an unrelated topic except confusion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - My impression is that the other uses of this term aren't notable. A bit of searching doesn't change that. I'm not sure, but I guess I lean to just keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:30, 11 November 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, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mother-Daughter Exchange Club → Girlfriends Films  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Redirect proposed and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother-Daughter Exchange Club, which was closed only a few hours before the redirect was created. Consensus that such redirects are inappropriate demonstrated by parallel AFDs as well as discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 17#Big Tits at School. Only content related to subject in target article is a list entry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not the same situation. I'm not familiar with the other film that was mentioned, but from my understanding, it didn't win any awards. This film series did—speaking of that, that was about a single film; this is about an entire series—which still makes me wonder why the proper article was deleted in the first place. At any rate, when I created the redirect, I suggested in the edit summary that a discussion about the notability of pornographic films should be discussed at WT:NFILM; but instead of doing that, you just want to delete the redirect? (BTW, it might help your argument if you actually list some of these "parallel AfDs" that you claim.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. You are in error. "the other film that was mentioned" also won awards, as you would, I hope, have noted if you had bothered to review the relevant AFD.
  • 2. You are in error. The other article referred to was not "about a single film", but a series, as you would, I hope, have noted if you had bothered to review the relevant AFD or RFD.
  • 3. You are misguided. As you well know, you and one or two other users have suggested before creating a distinct SNG for porn films, but the idea has never gained any traction, no less even remotely approached consensus support. It is absurd to suggest that existing consensus must be reviewed every time it is to be enforced.
  • 4. Given the number of such discussions you have participated in, the suggestion appears disingenuous, especially there were two other such outcomes closing in the past week (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirtwoman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlvana (2nd nomination), not to mention older discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Please Make Me Lesbian!. While some non-notable installments in notable series may have been redirected to the series article, that practice is not parallel. Non-notable book series don't get redirected to their publisher, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to match the result of the AfD, where the option of merge/redirect was indeed discussed but did not gain ground. The RfD listed above was indeed for the movie that won awards, and is listed here: Brazzers#Awards. To quote from the Big Tits RfD:

• Delete: The name of the film occurs four times at the target; redirects don't need to be linked from any page to be useful (many, especially e.g. ones based on typos, won't be); it isn't a synonym. It is mentioned at the target. It was the result of an AfD. It doubles as a preservation of the history of what was formerly an article. All of that almost made me suggest keeping this and refining it to the awards section. However, there are 19 volumes in the film series. The current target doesn't talk about the films, it merely lists a few because of the awards that they won. (...) There isn't a better target, and I think the search engine handles this adequately.

This sums up it pretty well. Currently, adult films do not have an SNG, and I don't believe they should, but that's a separate discussion, unrelated to this redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned at target and provides useful information for searchers (i.e. what company produced this). Seems to be unique AFAIK. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Consensus at the AFD was to Delete ... NOT redirect, The name isn't mentioned anywhere so should be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As already noted in the above-reference AfD for this subject here, the subject of this redirect is already mentioned several times at both Girlfriends Films & List of awards and nominations received by Girlfriends Films, and there are several more Wikipedia articles where the subject here can be linked to in the near future, which all means that this existing redirect will aid in searches of this term in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, likely search term (stats), the target article provides the context for the subject and could eventually give a few additional informations, no apparent benefit for the readers from its deletion (on the contrary, [1] without the redirect the first result would be Mother Up!, an obvious false positive). This redirect apparently meets WP:R#KEEP #1, #2, #3, #5. For the record, I am the AfD-nominator of a couple of Mother-Daughter Exchange Club films, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Natural Glamour Solos. Cavarrone 07:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- this was an "out of process" redirect, because, as editor Davey2010 says, "consensus at the AFD was to Delete ... NOT redirect" (the latter option was discussed but rejected at AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as this redirect is a valid search term, meets WP:RPURPOSE, passes several WP:R#KEEP criteria, and in this case also avoids false positives, this sole argument carries little weight. The article was deleted and remains deleted, so the final result is not going subverted just because someone is creating a bare redirect. Saying "it was discussed but rejected at AfD" is also exaggerating things, let's say that when the discussion was basically moot one editor suggested a "merge" (which is different from a bare redirect), another editor who had previously voted "delete" agreed as a "sensible and acceptable" move, then a third editor (you) disagreed mentioning a lack of well-sourced contents to be merged. At best I see a very limited discussion and no consensus for merging contents but no real suggestion/discussion about a simple redirect. Cavarrone 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This response is misguided. The AFD closed as a straightforward delete; the redirect was proposed, but received no support beyond its initial proponent. When an editor disgrees with the outcome of a deletion discussion, they should take the matter to DRV and try to gain consensus, not unilaterally reject the AFD outcome and demand, in effect, that consensus against their action be demonstrated a second time. There are situation where consensus practice allows/supports a redirect, but here consensus practice, demonstrated by an apparently uncontested string of similar discussions, cited above, rejects creation of the redirect. And, for example, when a non-notable book. or series of books, wins an insignificant award, we don't redirect those article titles to their publisher's article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, one editor suggested a "merge" (which is different from a bare redirect, you know it), another editor agreed, then a third editor disagreed. The AfD did not discussed the possibility of a redirect outside of a merge of contents, and did not discussed it properly, anyway. This is a proper place to discuss the opportunity of a redirect, but as long as the only arguments to deny a redirect are WP:OTHERSTUFF and the result of an AfD, they are weak arguments. About your example, yes, when a non-notable book or series of books are valid search terms meeting one or more WP:RPURPOSE and WP:R#KEEP criteria, they certainly go redirect to their parent articles. Cavarrone 23:15, 6 November 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 deprecate as suggested. Deryck C. 11:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from real name → Template:R from birth name  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possibly confusing name for a redirect to an WP:RCAT template. Not sure if this redirect should target Template:R from long name, Template:R from alternative name or Template:R from birth name. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the course of the discussion, I now think the redirect should be deleted ... well, that's what I would say if the redirect didn't have over 100 transclusions. The equivalent in this case would probably be to covert redirect into template utilizing ((Error)) and making it a landing page for other templates, similar to how ((IMDb)) and ((OTRS)) work. The thing about WP:RCAT templates is that we cannot assume that the editor who places the templates has a complete understanding about how Wikipedia works and will correct themselves if ((R from real name)) doesn't put the page in the redirect category they intend. Since the title of the redirect is ambiguous, this error landing page idea seems like a possible solution. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support this solution, since this would prevent any of the WP:BLP I mentioned below. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should go to the original page I redirected it to, R from alternative name. Anything can have a real name, not just people, so birth name doesn't fit. Likewise, real names are not necessarily longer than other names. There's no need to be more specific than alternative. I'm not sure how useful the redirect is (I can't remember since I made it over six years ago), but there's no harm in keeping it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to ((R from alternate name)).Convert to Template Error per Steel1943.(updated 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)) For people who change genders and/or change names, to insinuate that their "real" name is the name they deliberately chose to leave behind is problematic WP:BLP-wise. Alternate name, while still not great, is at least neutral in value judgements about what people's "real" names are.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong retarget to Template:R from personal name, following real name → personal name Template:R from legal name (see below). -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Tavix, I admire the desire for consistency, but that seems problematic as well, especially with no mention of "real" at Personal name. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion too, if you wouldn't consider that too disruptive here. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out where the problem is. The article on personal name seems to imply that "personal name" would be synonymous with ((R from long name)). The documentation at ((R from personal name)) (IMO) is referring to usage of someone's legal name as opposed to a pseudonym (eg: stage name or pen name). Colloquially speaking, this is exactly what someone typically means when they use the phrase "real name". To solve that problem, I think it's best if ((R from personal name)) is moved to ((R from legal name)) and then fix the links. I now believe that real name should be retargeted to legal name. I don't see the XY problem here as I can't fathom someone referring to someone's birth name as their real name if it was changed legally (eg: via marriage or a gender change). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may not always know someone's legal name, so I'd prefer to keep that name vague. I think the Rcat functions better as a sort of miscellaneous place to throw names rather than something with such a narrow scope. Maybe worth renaming if the current RM for Personal name goes through, though. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "miscellaneous place to throw names" is definitely ((R from alternative name)). All these other RCATs mentioned are simply narrower scopes of that. I don't see it as too narrow, there's perhaps thousands upon thousands of notable cases where someone goes by a pseudonym and their real/legal name is known. When that's the case, ((R from personal name)) (which I want renamed to ((R from legal name))) should be used as the RCAT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate per Steel1943. As others have already covered, there are some incredibly reckless implications in suggesting birth names are "real" names. I would not oppose making this its own template, used narrowly from legal names to stage names, etc. And retargeting to ((R from alternative name)) would certainly be an improvement, though it's not my preferred solution. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: The template you're describing already exists at ((R from personal name)) (although I now see that it's a bad name, per my above reply to you). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/deprecate/Convert to landing page. The term "real name" brings us into WP:XY territory because "real name" can mean different things in different contexts. Is the real name the name that is assigned at birth? Is the real name the name that you use among friends? Is the real name the name that is best known to members of the community? I am also in favor of deleting the real name redirect, though that may be best saved for another discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Notecardforfree: IMO, deletion is not an option since the redirect has several transclusions, so editors are obviously either looking it up and/or using it. The "landing page" option I provided above could be compared to creating a disambiguation page at this title. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: I am also fine with the landing page idea; for the sake of building consensus, I went ahead and struck my delete vote above. Just out of curiosity, wouldn't swapping this for ((Error)) have the same practical effect as deleting the template and then forcing editors to replace it with another functioning template, such as Template:R from alternative name or Template:R from former name on a case-by-case basis? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Notecardforfree: Sort of, but then the editor would be provided options of what template they should use instead when they click a link in the template and visit the template's "/doc" page, like how it is with ((IMDb)) and ((OTRS)). Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have created a draft for the "template error landing page" under the RFD notice. To make it live, revert this edit and remove the RFD notice. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 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 and Retarget respectively (non-admin-closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:RfU → Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:RFU → Category:Requests for unblock  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am aware that the current target was determined through a previous RfD discussion, but it makes no sense that this and WP:RFU have different targets. SSTflyer 13:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged Wikipedia:RFU into this discussion since it is a WP:CNR, so I don't agree with its current target. On a related note, Wikipedia:Requests for unblock redirects to Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I do agree that the two nominated redirects should target the same location (both redirects have such an edit history to where retargeting them should be okay without breaking too much), but I have no opinion on where these two redirects target ... as long as it isn't Category:Requests for unblock. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer: please post the link to the "previous RfD discussion". --SI 11:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 6#Wikipedia:RfU SSTflyer 03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking a look at the history of WP:RFU:

Created at 21:09, 21 December 2004 as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (the current target of WP:RfU)

Retargeted at 20:57, 1 January 2005 to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

Retargeted at 23:00, 7 November 2005 to Wikipedia:Deletion review (on 18 October 2005, Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review: Was discussed on VFU talk page, consensus in favor of the move.)

Retargeted at 14:59, 8 June 2007 to Category:Requests for unblock ("DRV was renamed in Nov. 2005, institutional memory of this link is effectively gone")

• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion was created at 22:29, 26 October 2004 as a redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

Retargeted at 17:33, 26 October 2005 to Wikipedia:Deletion review

(suggested by User:Ron Ritzman that we revive this page as an easier way to retrieve deleted content. cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process&oldid=286395208#Proposed_wikiproject.2C_Requests_for_undeletion)

By the end of April 2009 a new process was installed and active, with three shortcuts, not including RFU or RfU

WP:RfU was added to the shortcuts at 01:27, 13 August 2014

• Keep Wikipedia:RfU, endorsing the 2014 RfD discussion. Retarget Wikipedia:RFU so both redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. This undoes the x-namespace redirect and restores the original destination, which was usurped in 2007, a couple of years before the Requests for undeletion was created in its current form. CAT:RFU will remain as it is. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retarget, respectively, per Wbm1058. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia:RfU and retarget Wikipedia:RFU to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I agree that these should both take readers to the same place. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget per above, but hatnote, since "Request for Unblock" is a plausible expansion of RFU. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:42, 16 November 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. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Worthington College → Dawson's Creek  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere in target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "college" here is sticking my search. I get that it is Worthington University in Dawson's Creek, not "College"; I don't know how much we have to pay attention to the collegiate system for fictional universities, but perhaps saying it is a college is then just wrong.

Actually a gsearch gives me quite high up (fifth) a Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, Tim Worthingtonhere at University of Cambridge's directory, the result of my gsearch but this may just be Gsearch sucking up to me (I didn't go to any college in Cambridge but Google probably knows I lived in Cambridge for a long time so it might tailor its results to that knowledge, the tart).

However, I might hae a useful find in Penn State Worthington Scranton so we could R it there.... "Worthington Scranton joined 11 other Penn State locations as a campus of the University’s Commonwealth College".. but it still isn't called a college. It seems a bit weak, to me, to retarget "college" to something that is one but doesn't call itself one. Nothing links to this, and hits are 12⁄90 a day, so I'm inclined to say delete, but for now, I'll go Weak retarget. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor/Redirect Is Worthington a regular setting for the show's episodes? The Dawson's Creek article has a section on Worthington. It could be anchored and redirected there. Fictional schools like Neptune High are okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Tavix's findings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Worthington College seems to be a former name of Minnesota West Community and Technical College. The place in Dawson's Creek was "Worthington University", but it's easy to confuse the two. I'm not sure if there's a primary topic, but perhaps a disambiguation page could be helpful, especially if there's merit to Si's research. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find with the Worthington Community College. Apparently that was the name of the institution from 1936-1997. The Dawson's Creek should be a hatnote. (For Worthington University, see Dawson's Creek) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my search, the fictional place is referred to as "Worthington College" pretty frequently, so I believe the current target is primary, especially since the other place was Worthington Community College. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it used more than Worthington University? [2] [3] Or was it 50/50? Should the header be redone to Worthington College then? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I've rarely watched the show, but my understanding is that the fictional university is strongly associated with the program. I lean to just keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of honesty, I'm going to admit that I've never seen one single episode. (In my defense, the program appears excruciatingly boring.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to tell you the truth, I've also only recently got onto it and seen the first couple of episodes. Its not bad IMO, but I didn't take it seriously. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:38, 29 October 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. Deryck C. 11:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump News Network → Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term is not mentioned at target. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The rumored "Trump News" did make some headlines during the campaign but so far nothing has materialized and I don't think a redirect to the campaign article is helpful. It may be redirectable somewhere, I'll consider changing my !vote if someone has suggestions.LM2000 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This isn't the place for rumor-mongering about what Trump may or may not set up in the future. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:28, 13 November 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} 01:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trumpism → Political positions of Donald Trump  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term is not mentioned at target. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep anyway: Widely-viewed search term that generally applies to Donald Trump's political philosophy and positions. His political philosophy and positions are described at the article it redirects to. pbp 14:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now, the word "Trumpism" and is defined in the lead of the article. pbp 14:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now it isn't, because somebody got it in there head to take it out, even though it can be sourced. See Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump#Sources that use the term Trumpism for a list of sources that use the term. pbp 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the term is now defined at the target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Relevant and a pretty common term at this point. Dustin (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Relevant based on the available sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I'm not sure how truly common that this term is, and I'm wary about political neologisms in general here. However, the news coverage at the moment appears to justify leaving things as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Future historians will need some descriptor for the ideology that led 46.8% of 2016 voters to support Trump. It will remain relevant even if Trump himself fails to be inaugurated for some reason.Amyzex (talk) 21:30, 16 November 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 List of school shootings in the United States#1980s. Thanks for finding that target, NCFF. Since we're now all in agreement, I see no reason to leave this open. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Parkway South Junior High School shooting → Parkway School District  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parkway South Middle School shooting → Parkway School District  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parkway south junior high school shooting → Parkway School District  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no mention of this shooting to be found at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of school shootings in the United States#1980s; that list includes the shooting at Parkway South Middle School. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per NCFF. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 17 November 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} 01:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• British Columbia Boundaries Act 1863 → British Columbia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting WP:REDLINK deletion, noting that there's no mention of this Act at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not sure, but I lean to thinking as well that this subject is notable enough for its own page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:19, 13 November 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.

• Who would win in a fight → Resource holding potential  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm curious to hear what other editors think of this redirect. The target does talk about a theory for predicting the outcome of competitions between animals, but I'm also worried that this may WP:SURPRISE readers. What do you think? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague, or Retarget to Military simulation. There is a book series called "Who Would Win?" by Jerry Pallotta that pits animals against each other. And there's a show called Deadliest Warrior which does the same but with people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is incredibly vague and can refer to so many different scenarios. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The answer is "Someone, unless it's a tie." WP:NOTFAQ all the way. Steel1943 (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Create page with links to current target, military simulation, and any other target. It's a legitimate search term that we can create a sensible landing page for. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am against creating a DAB for it might be pushing beyond the boundaries of WP:NOTFAQ, I don't see how this is plausible. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:29, 17 November 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} 01:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperation attack → Superpower (ability)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Once upon a time, there was an article at this title that had something to do with video games. In 2009, the article was transformed into a redirect to special attack. One year later, the redirect was changed to target Superpower (ability)#Desperation attack. That section no longer exists at the target, and this term is not mentioned at the target. I think that this will likely WP:SURPRISE readers and should be deleted or retargeted to another suitable title. Note that Talk:Desperation attack is a redirect that targets Talk:Special attack. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This term is vague enough that it can mean a bunch of different things. Various attacks done by characters in several video games comes to mind. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to vagueness. I thought first about the 36 Strategems and how one should avoid events which can lead to desperation attacks from the enemy but the connection is a bit too weak --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. There are probably some video games where if you are nearing death, you get special powers such as limit break but it isn't clear for this redirect that it would go into superpowers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:55, 15 November 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.