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 Winx Club characters as I find no consensus to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Characters and locations in Winx Club → Winx Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY. The redirect could refer to "locations" (cannot find an appropriate article) or "characters" (List of Winx Club characters). Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to List of Winx Club characters as the characters are sectioned into the main groups (Alfea Academy, Red Fountain) and also the home worlds for the main characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BDD, I believe it does. The characters are organized in the areas they are from, and there isn't really any other part of the article that explains the different worlds, like a Setting section. 22:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]

• Delete - Who is going to look this up? It seems like an unlikely search term to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 procedural close, wrong forum. The correct place to challenge a closure is WP:DRV. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alasdair Seton-Marsden → Charlie Gard case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No links to this redirect and no prospect of an article. The previous discussion was cased with a bad decision to redirect to an article which barley mentions this person. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 17 Whizz40 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think it is reasonable to redirect to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency) but it is not something I want to make a big fuss about. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy keep per the consensus of the discussion that closed less than 24 hours ago. WP:POINT? Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This seems like a procedural close. If you think the closer of the previous RfD interpreted the consensus incorrectly you should make your case at Deletion review. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 restore. There is no consensus to delete, and no one is advocating for the status quo, so here we are. I'll restore List of 12 oz. Mouse characters and retarget the other one to it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Characters of 12 oz. Mouse → 12 oz. Mouse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of 12 oz. Mouse characters → 12 oz. Mouse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is not a list of characters. (Oddly enough, both of these redirects are ((R with history)) with Characters of 12 oz. Mouse being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2010, and List of 12 oz. Mouse characters being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2015.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment this really depends on whether there will ever be a section for the characters in the main article. In the meantime, a copy of the characters should be dumped into wikia or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Restore content and send to AfD as it has apparently never been discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Cocksucker. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Why is this suitable as a redirect to fellatio, when cocksucker is not? feminist 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Re-target to cocksucker. This might be a soft redirect page, but I think that's the best thing to do. Cocksuckers is a likely search term anyway. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and retarget cocksucker to fellatio - which is the only concrete meaning listed at Wiktionary. A hatnote linking to the Wiktionary entry can be added at the target if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget per Blaze the Movie Fan. I don't think fellatio being the only concrete meaning here should be a deciding factor, as the word is surely more often used figuratively than literally. The Wiktionary entry, which lists both definitions, strikes me as the most useful page for the reader, and retargeting to the soft redirect as the best way to achieve that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• National Archives of Morocco → Archives du Maroc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because Morocco does not have a national archives per se; there are some archival materials in the Bibliothèque Nationale du Royaume du Maroc, the Archives du Maroc, the Direction des Archives Royales, etc. -- M2545 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info about hopes in 2015 for creation of a national archive can be read here. I have not found anything indicating its establishment to date. -- M2545 (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. There really isn't a whole lot out there on the subject, but I just read this article (fascinating read, btw) and the author is claiming there is a National Archives of Morocco. "Finally, in 2009, through a combination of internal and external pressure, the national archives of Morocco were born, and in 2010, Professor Baïda was named as its head." By cross referencing the target, you'll learn that Jamaâ Baïda is the director of the Archives du Maroc (this is important since the article only ever refers to it as the national archives). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. The consensus I see below is that there is no POV problem with this redirect, and so it would be fine if there were content about this topic. However, there is no content about this that anybody in the discussion has identified, so there is no appropriate place to target this, which leaves deletion as the only option for now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Labour Party Marxists → Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Like the category Category:People targeted by the Anti-Defamation League created today, this has a heavy dose of pov. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the project called "Labour Party Marxists" also known as "Communist University" is specifically and open a group of people from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). It doesn't warrant a stand alone article, but is significant enough a campaign to warrant a redirect. I suggest you assume good faith and create a better rationale rather than just lazy accusations of POV (without specifying what exactly the POV is supposed to be). Can you clarify what you are trying to claim is POV here? Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment "http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/" is not a reliable secondary source. It's not even a "project", as far as I can tell - it's just a website. Could've been created by anyone. See WP:RS. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Completely POV redirect. No basis in reliable secondary sources. Created to make a political point. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What "political point" is being made here and what POV? This is the official website of the Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC) laying out the programme of their project called the Labour Party Marxists. On the right hand side of this official website, you can see a tab adversing their LabourPartyMarxists.org.uk subproject. I think some of the bourgeois liberal-orientated editors who (presumably) do not knowing anything about British Marxism and the various factions within it need to stop jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith when there is none. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume good faith until I see a POV edit like this one. Care to explain how that addition is helping us build a better encyclopedia? Rockypedia (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, absolutely. Trotskyist groups engage in a policy known as entrism, to try and change larger political organisations to a position inline with their own (a strategy they have adopted since the 1930s). As happened with Militant tendency in the Labour Party 1980s, which had 3 MPs elected (of course, you have no knowledge in this field, you have just Wikistalked me to this article as a form of harassment). Now I have answered your question, care to address the glaring fact that all of this info regarding the Labour Party Marxists is mentioned on the CPGB-PCC's own official website? Claíomh Solais (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a wonderful diatribe. Do you have even one reliable secondary source to back up any of those opinions? Because we don't publish opinions on Wikipedia. That's for your own personal website, where you can expound at length on the infiltration of the Labour party. Rockypedia (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you haven't clicked the link to their official website then where this is openly discussed? Or our own article on entryism? Why bother following me around to articles when you can't even be arsed to look into the subject matter at hand? In this case the CPGB-PCC attempt at entrism through their group "Labour Party Marxists" has been much less successful than say Militant in the past, but it still exists and is a notable part of this groups current activities, it isn't a "diatribe" to mention it. It just shows your lack of basic knowledge on the standard tactics employed by Trotskyist grouplettes. Perhaps stick to what you know; the American military invading countries, or whatever your field is. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading past your personal attacks, I see your answer is "no, I have no sources, only my own opinion." That is what I had assumed. Rockypedia (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love the bit suggesting I'm not assuming good faith followed by the attack on me for creating a "lazy accusation of POV". And accusations of stalking, which we refer to as WP:Hounding is an accusation that an editor is following another editor "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.". That's a pretty serious accusation, especially coupled with the explicit claim of harassment. In any case, even if there is a project called "Labour Party Marxists", most people searching for Labour Party Marxists are probably looking for Marxists who are members of the Labour Party. Rockypedia's removal of a claim stated as fact but only sourced to a website was correct, not harassment. Anybody can claim they are doing something, we need reliable independent sources to state that they are actually doing whatever. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, but add hatnote I'm slightly puzzled by this nomination on the basis of WP:RNEUTRAL. The redirect isn't saying all Marxists in the Labour Party are CPGB (which would definitely be extreme POV forking!). Is anyone really going to arrive at the CPGB page and think they've found the Labour Party? But if that's the concern, then let's use the helpful Template:Redirect. Specifically:

"Labour Party Marxists" redirects here. For Marxists in the Labour Party, see Labour Party (UK).

The stronger challenge to this redirect seems to be verifiability: the only secondary source I could find for the link between LPM and CPGB-PCC is a suggestion in an academic blog. But I think WP:USESPS would seem to allow us to accept an organization's claims about their trade names. 00:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.R.Forrester (talk • contribs)

• Without discussion of "Labour Party Marxists" at the target article, I couldn't support keeping. Big WP:SURPRISE for anyone not familiar with the internal CPGB group. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of mention at the target and a lack of reliable sources for the term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per BDD. The term isn't mentioned in the article, so the redirect is useless and potentially confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Cummins. As there is no current specific section to target it to, the article as a whole will have to do as I do not see consensus for deletion and there is no support for the status quo. If/when a specific section is written these can be refined to point directly there without requiring a new discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cummins China → Dongfeng Automobile Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• China Cummins → Dongfeng Automobile Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect should be deleted. Non-exist alternative name for the joint venture "Dongfeng Cummins". Moreover, Cummins had other joint venture with other manufacturer [1], such as Chongqin Cummins [2] Matthew_hk tc 11:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Cummins#See also as that list mentions two companies that are China based: Dongfeng and LiuGong. If it were Cummins India, then it could go to the Cummins#India_operations section of the article. This is a likely search given that there is an article for Cummins UK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget per AngusWOOF. feminist 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The name isn't used in any capacity at the current target or any of the other articles at the see also. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. I'd be extremely wary of ever pointing a redirect to a See also section. Given MOS:SEEALSO, it's entirely possible the section could lack any information about Cummins in China in the future. Should there ever be a section like Cummins#China operations, that would be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Look easy to write a short section for Cummins operation in China as Cummins#China operations. Matthew_hk tc 03:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. This is a good example of consensus can change. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun → Big Mac  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was previously deleted at RfD as implausible, then recreated and protected by RHaworth (talk · contribs). A deletion review concluded that the discussion should be relisted, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination and I am neutral.  Sandstein  08:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and semi-protect. Clearly people are searching for the term, since it's been repeatedly un-redirected. —Guanaco 10:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Huh, can you point to any of these un-redirections? The history shows no such thing, or should we assume this is just a drive by vote with no substance? --86.5.93.103 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm going by the protection log reason given by RHaworth. I'm assuming the evidence of this is in currently deleted revisions, which probably should be restored. —Guanaco 21:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've restored the old history from prior to the deletion, but most of the history is actually at Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. following a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This redirect actually has quite a bit of history. It was created at this title as an article in 2003, sent to AfD in April 2006 (result was no consensus), moved to Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. following a requested move shortly afterwards, and boldy merged to Big Mac#Two all-beef patties slogan by user:Pixelface in August 2007. A bit of page move vandalism accidentally resulted in the creation of Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun. (comma after "onions") as well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is present in sources, mainly noting the trademark but also discussion what resulted in it, and is consistently searched for even outside the times when it is being discussed, e.g. it got 110 hits in 2015 when nothing at all happened with the redirect. Further the redirect leads directly to the relevant section of the article so I don't see any cause for confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete even if it is discussed in sources it isn't a plausible search term - nobody is going to type this into the search bar. I don't think the statistics for redirects with very low numbers of hits are necessarily reliable as the page will get some small number of hits from search engines crawling it. And Wikipedia editors are quite happy to create wildly implausible redirects, so the fact people create it doesn't necessarily make it plausible. Hut 8.5 17:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Hut 8.5: The page views shown in the "stats" link and which I quoted above are human views, i.e. excluding search engine crawlers and similar hits. Experience shows that there are a few that get missed, but this number is in the low single digits per year - two orders of magnitude above that is definitely not a redirect with very low numbers. For comparison, Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun, a theoretically more likely search term got 10 hits in the calender year 2015 (still more than misidentified bots could account for alone) the version as it is presented in the article, Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. got 223 hits that year which really does show how many people are looking for this. Also in 2015 the very clearly useful redirect America, United States of had only 11 hits. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK, I didn't realise the tool was that sophisticated now, I've struck the above. America, United States of strikes me as a pretty useless redirect given that America and United States both get you to the target much more quickly. Hut 8.5 17:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The other redirects only get you there quicker if you know they go direct to the article about the USA and not to disambigs or articles about continents, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. I (re)closed the last RFD entirely unaware of the context because someone else had already speedied it, incorrectly in hindsight. Mentioned in sources and points to the correct place. Semi-protect it if necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep one of the most significant marketing campaigns in the States of all time. Anyone who was alive in the 1980s or 1990s will have this engrained in their memory. As I mentioned at the DRV, all I have to do to get to it as the first result in the search bar is type in "Twoal". That is more than enough for me to think it is a likely search term. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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} 03:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Zodiac (TV Series) → Anouska Hempel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The Zodiac TV series is not mentioned in the article about Hempel. Redlink to encourage creation of the article about this TV series. Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The redirect right now only serves to confuse. —Guanaco 10:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I created it but have no objection to it being deleted. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for TV Series capital S. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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} 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• War in Afghanistan (2015–present) → War in Afghanistan (2001–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect should be deleted. Per discussion on talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Requested_move_14_June_2017 the subdivision of 2015 makes no sense for US involvement in Afghanistan Casprings (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'm not exactly clear on how these guidelines work, but it would seem to me that #1 here provides a good reason not to delete: the page has useful page history, or edit history that should be kept. Feel free to correct me on this if I've misread the guideline. Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the edit history which must be preserved, there are many articles which still link to this redirect. Even if those links are changed, there is no point in breaking links in article history and on external sites. Generally redirects are kept unless they're highly implausible or harmful in some way. —Guanaco 10:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Guanaco. The 2015 division does make sense if you read the article, so it's not an unreasonable search term in addition to the likely links from external sites and possibly printed sources over which we have no control. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Natg 19 and Guanaco. Page history is important and links should not be broken without reason. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Biomedicine. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Biomedical → Medical research  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In its current state, this term seems like the first word in many compound terms, but itself is not identified in Wikipedia. For example, see the list of article pages that start with "Biomedical". Unless there is a better target out there that identifies the term "biomedical" (Biomedicine may be a retargeting option possibly as a ((R from adjective)), but I am not sure), it may be best to delete this redirect per both WP:REDLINK and to allow Wikipedia's search function to do the work for readers Steel1943 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to biomedicine. I don't see any potential for an article called "Biomedical"; such things usually belong on Wiktionary. —Guanaco 10:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Biomedicine per Guanaco. Any potential article will just duplicate that one at an inferior title, which we don't want, and search results (which are not always available, and not always easily accessible) are more likely to find random uses of the term in other articles than the article that the searcher is almost certainly looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to biomedicine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.