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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Liquid dubstep → Dubstep  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion, There's no written article or report on this subject, to add there is also no sources for it. Conceivably it is an in-joke name for the genre 'Chillstep'. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's hard to find a clear definition of what is or isn't "liquid dubstep", and basically all of the related discussions are done by obscure blogs or similar sorts of websites. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can always be recreated if sufficient information from notable reliable sources (not random blogs) is provided. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (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 Rae Sremmurd discography. Redirects are often created for topics that aren't notable enough for a standalone article. In the absence of any indication that this redirect could be misleading, the consensus is for pointing it to Rae Sremmurd discography. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 12:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Slim Jxmmi discography → Rae Sremmurd  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Jxmmi as redirect per consensus there, but would Rae Sremmurd discography be a better target for this specific redirect? feminist 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to "Rae Sremmurd discography" - Rae Sremmurd discography is a portion of the discography for Slim Jxmmi discography. Redirects are cheap, and the page has a "potentially useful page history". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - It also makes sense to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirects leave pages for lone editors to hijack. There's no reason for Wikipedia to maintain content (or even a redirect) for a subject that's not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Afghanica → Bergenia stracheyi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to dozens of species or cultivars. If there is a primary topic, it's likely Afghanica (Cannabis bigener), which doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in its target. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and let the search results do their job. – Uanfala 21:05, 27 July 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible typo

Was PROD'd by Groiglery1217 after I made a mistake in saying PROD should be used. Since redirects are not eligible for PROD, converting to RFD. I have no opinion at this time. ~ GB fan 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Mascot where Wikipede was mentioned as a mascot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The retarget proposal is terrible - not only directing an article-space title to project space, but to a very obscure part of project space. If this page already existed as a redirect to WP mascots, it would almost certainly be deleted, so let's skip a step and delete it now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Oiyarbepsy, the retarget would create a cross namespace rdr to low-importance part of project-space that would probably be listed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groiglery1217 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No appropriate target in the mainspace. feminist 04:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not retarget from mainspace to WP space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't keep. It's not plausible enough as a typo. If this is retargeted (and I don't know if it should be), a better target would be meta:Wikipede. – Uanfala 10:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oiyarbepsy. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province → Census in Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a poor closure at AfD. The closer - Kharkiv07 - has not responded to my query. Consensus was clearly favouring a delete and, indeed, that is what has happened to numerous similar articles relating to the Raj era censuses in India. Pakistan did not even exist in 1901. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Sitush (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that was a bad AFD close, and I see no consensus to redirect to Census in Pakistan. And the very good reason not to do so, as pointed out by Sitush, is that the 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province was not a census of Pakistan. Pakistan indeed did not exist at the time, and there is no mention of any North West Frontier Province censuses in the Census in Pakistan article. If we had any content anywhere that dealt with those censuses then a redirect to that would make sense, but if we have no coverage of them then such a redirect has no purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's misleading. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Boing. Vanamonde (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Isotta Fraschin L.121 R.C.40 → Isotta Fraschini Asso XI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposed deletion. It was created in error by misspelling Fraschini as Fraschin, a mistake readers are rather unlikely to make for such specific and technical articles. The correct redirect already exists (Isotta Fraschini L.121 R.C.40) and has incoming links, unlike this one, which simply pollutes the namespace. Deeday-UK (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing further to add.--Petebutt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bridge (NHRP Louisville, Nebraska) → Mynard Road Bridge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old redirect from a page move. I don't believe anyone would ever type in this poorly disambiguated name (it was moved to an appropriate name). It also has a typo (NHRP should have been NRHP). I've been fixing all these typos throughout WP (there were hundreds) and would like to delete this one. There are no incoming links. MB 01:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but this isn't as bizarre as it looks. For some reason, several NR-listed bridges in Nebraska (including this one) are listed merely as "Bridge". Yes, just "Bridge". Probably someone was trying to highlight the fact that this was NR-listed and not merely a random concrete culvert that the highway department opened last week. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2017 (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.