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. 14:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops ouchskies → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another redirect from an article that should have been deleted instead of redirected. Here's what that article looked like. This is absolutely not a significant catchphrase, or otherwise. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No mention of this phrase at the current target and not a notable phrase. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obscure/trivial term at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 19:03, 26 June 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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BMG Interactive → Rockstar Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Don't quite know what to do with this... BMG Interactive [Entertainment] is the predecessor of Rockstar Games in the sense that Take-Two acquired it, closed it, and opened Rockstar Games on a different continent to reuse its Grand Theft Auto license indepdendent from Infogrames, who acquired BMG Entertainment (the parent of BMG Interactive [Entertainment]). I'd say delete, but what do you think? Lordtobi (✉) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The history is adequately mentioned in the lead of the target article and we appear not to have any better information anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above comments. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:11, 23 June 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. I'll note that WP:SALT should only be applied when a page is repeatedly recreated, and that's not the case here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockstar Limited → Rockstar North  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Rockstar Ltd" is a "business support service" company in Essex, completely unrealted to Rockstar North or any Rockstar Games-related company. Even if we went off the possibility that the user was searching for a Rockstar Games subsidiary located in the United Kingdom (judged by the legal appendix), it could still point to Rockstar North, Rockstar Lincoln, Rockstar Leeds. Should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 17:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - thanks to Lordtobi for finding that company registration. Google Maps Street View shows that it is registered to an ordinary-looking residence. But legally, he's bagsed the name. Note the large number of Californian companies with a very similar name here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the other two. No clear target under the present circumstances, and the article it might best fit for does not currently exist as the company appears to be non-notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:14, 20 June 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) 15:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron Garbut → Rockstar North  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Aaron Garbut is or was the art director at R* North, but the article itself holds no significant information on him, should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 17:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a infobox-notable person for the company. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mr. Garbut doesn't appear to be that notable, even in the narrowly specific context of the firm's business history. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:33, 19 June 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. Deryck C. 14:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting facts of germany → Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Interesting Facts of Germany → Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 29#Interesting Facts of the Bible. Facts about Germany aren't necessarily interesting, and I wouldn't consider it a plausible search term (and if so, I'm not sure what someone would expect). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we should force the user to search again. It is a grammatical error, and Wikipedia should not have articles on trivia/fun stuff. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not so sure about Richard's point. If it were a plausible search term, there'd be no reason to "force the user to search again"; a dumb but helpful redirect is still a helpful redirect. But, as Tavix says, it's not a plausible search term, so that doesn't matter. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I agree that these don't seem helpful. As well, it seems to be a bad precedent if these sorts of redirects end up staying. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 20 June 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. Deryck C. 14:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SüngerBob KarePantolon → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The language I hit on was Turkish. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete funny to say (especially to the tune of the song), but not an appropriate redirect per nom. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:21, 17 June 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 Peyronie's disease. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 10:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Plastic induration of penis → Cutaneous condition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is way too precise, and Wikipedia has nothing even close to what the redirect is suggesting. The target article doesn't mention "penis", nor can I find the phrase "plastic induration" anywhere on Wikipedia. Plastic induration is red. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Peyronie's disease, where the term is mentioned (in Latin) as a synonym for this medical condition. Induratio penis plastica already redirects to Peyronie's disease. Note that the word "plastic" does not refer to the petrochemical-derived material, but rather to "producing tissue", which is a medical concept. We may also wish to create Plastic induration of the penis. There's not much left to discuss here. Will an admin please close this as soon as this is settled? - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Richard Cavell, with haste. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:15, 20 June 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. Deryck C. 14:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Deadwood's Famous and Infamous → Deadwood (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete due to the opinion-like title since there isn't an official list of "Famous and Infamous" in the Deadwood universe. Should have been deleted instead of redirected in 2006. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Deadwood, South Dakota#Notable people, as books and websites using the expression are covering the actual place, not the TV series. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: That still doesn't satisfy my rationale for deletion. That section simply lists people who have lived in Deadwood, and makes no effort to note whether they are "famous" or "infamous" (which would be editorializing). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous and infamous just means notable. It can be tagged as a non-neutral name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but can you imagine someone searching using this phrase? If so, what would they be looking for? I don't think a list of residents of a town in South Dakota would be satisfactory. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a vague and generic phrase, one among hundreds of ways of referring to the same thing. From AngusWOOF's results it doesn't appear like a stock phrase that has any particular association with Deadwood. Also noting the WP:XY dilemma between List of Deadwood characters and Deadwood, South Dakota#Notable people. – Uanfala 19:15, 1 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 Jimmy Cavallo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Angelo Pergolito → BSD Records  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Topic fails to meet GNG, redirect should be deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepPending AFD redirect as founder / creator of the company as mentioned in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC) updated 00:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete company article to which biography redirects is almost certainly about to be turned into a redirect itself ... a redirect to a redirect starts to get crazy. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, striking vote then. This really depends on the result of that. If he's not mentioned in the BSD merged article, then it can disappear. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The target has now been redirected to Jimmy Cavallo, and that article does (briefly) mention Angelo Pergolito. – Uanfala 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jimmy Cavallo instead. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:27, 26 June 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 withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Khadija Saye → Grenfell Tower fire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to non-existent section of target article. Khadija Saye is not mentioned in the target article. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A profile of the artist was published in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/khadija-saye-artist-was-on-cusp-of-recognition-when-she-died-in-grenfell She may be notable independent of the Grenfell Tower fire. Mduvekot (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I would say that this person may be notable enough to merit an article in her own right. PatGallacher (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. She was to have featured in a BBC Two documetnary scheduled to air this evening, but cancelled in the light of recent events. This is Paul (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happy to withdraw this RfD nomination if that makes it easier for someone to create an article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per the BBC article Mduvekot provided, it seems this individual was at least partially notable, a possible valid search term and so the redirect might be better off not deleted. Of course if it is determined that Khadija Saye passes WP:GNG and qualifies for an independent article than this whole squabble over the redirect is meaningless. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes at minimum she's a valid search term, and I do think there's a case for notability--the BBC had been just about to run a documentary featuring her art when she died, in addition to other sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, and more. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there isn't a full section in the target article, her name is present in it — and I agree that there may be enough standalone notability here, as I've already seen the Guardian article which essentially portrayed her as an artist who was already sitting right on the cusp of stardom as it was. I haven't evaluated the sources in enough depth to know whether there's really enough meat to support a standalone biography once you discount the matter of a person not generally attaining notability because death per se, but I definitely see that there may be a valid case if those with greater knowledge and greater access to the needed resources than I've got can locate enough substance about her art. But she's the only casualty so far about whom I've seen standalone coverage focusing on her, so she's at the very least a plausible enough search term that the redirect should be maintained until such time as somebody's ready to tackle a standalone bio. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect but the ambition should be to convert to a standalone article soon. If that standalone article does not show notability, then it might be deleted at some point in the future. But for now its a keep. CalzGuy (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider this withdrawn. As Saye is now mentioned in the target article the grounds for this nomination are no longer valid. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:26, 19 June 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) 15:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TEa Leoni → Téa Leoni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• TÈa Leoni → Téa Leoni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Very unlikely the é would be capitalized (with or without the accent). UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a Eubot redirect, created because TÈa Leoni exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both now nominated above. Thanks as always, Tavix. UnitedStatesian (talk)
• Note I've alerted user:Adam78, who created the TÈa Leoni redirect without an edit summary, to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable stylization for the actress. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - There's no need to keep these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 20 June 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) 20:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthropogenic behaviours → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Anthropogenic behaviors → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Anthropogenic behavior → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Anthropogenic activity → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Anthropogenic activities → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Anthropogenic activities and behaviours can refer to a lot of things, not necessarily the environment Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Just another case of Neelix making incorrect stuff up out of apparent boredom (or whatever caused him to make tens of thousands of needless redirects). Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all typical Neelix nonsense redirects. I can't believe these are still coming up. Legacypac (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - the redirects are all grammatically incorrect, and by keeping them, Wikipedia will add substance to the notion that they are grammatically correct terms. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Looks like a clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:33, 20 June 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.