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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Billy And The Clone-a-saurus → Sweet Seymour Skinner's Baadasssss Song  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems quite implausible, especially with the hyphenation... Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of fictional books from non-print media#The Simpsons provided the entry is added there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I do sympathize with the nominator that the formatting is wonky, and the plot point is very minor. I would support keeping it as-is over retargeting (even if the entry is added), as the episode provides context which the list would be unable to provide. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TaylorSwiftVEVO → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very implausible search term unless it is a company or a brand. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TaylorSwiftVEVO is the name of Taylor Swift's YouTube channel. There are a few more similar redirects of this type (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3AVEVO&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dpi1tfyrc7acj1k2uqdgz16mb). Iffy★Chat -- 13:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as plausible search term - Readers may want to know history behind the channel or may want to search assuming a whole list of Vevo channels might appear ?, Bizarrely it's had crap pageviews since its creation however from 2018 onwards it's getting 20 views a day so people must be searching for it ?, Then again it could be externally linked somewhere ? .... Anyway seems plausible so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I propose deletion because, what other singer or band has a Wikipedia dedicated to their VEVO page? While her page has broke records, why not just put that in her article where it needs to be? Or in VEVO's article. But the page itself is irrelevant, Taylor Swift is the actual subject.Trillfendi (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"what other singer or band has a Wikipedia dedicated to their VEVO page" None however many artists have VEVO redirects such as Rihanna, Selena Gomez, Adele, One direction, Shakira, Nicki Minaj, Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Eminem, Beyonce.

Yes she is the main subject however the channel is related to her and is easily a plausible search term, Which part of WP:REDIRECT does this fail?. –Davey2010^Talk 10:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Normally music artists don't need redirects for their VEVOs but she is listed as such in the top 10 of List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons listed above. She's listed as such in the top 10 of List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (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. Unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhoden Green → Kent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is too broad article but this place hardly exists, it doesn't even show up on Geograph, redirecting to the civil parish, which appears to be Paddock Wood[1] would be normal but this place isn't even mentioned on the OS so even that would be questionable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2018 (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. Unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shukla family (Beohari) → Ram Kishore Shukla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion, Nominating for deletion, non notable subject, created unnecessarily. Dr.pragmatist (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 9/9 → 0.999...  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete and delete hatnote at current target. It is not clear why "9/9" should redirect to "0.999...". If anywhere, it could redirect to September 9. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. Even if this were more appropriately targeted to 'September 9', I'd still support deletion. It should be noted that while similar pages such as '10/10' and '2/2' exist, they tend to be quite different (the former is about the pop song of the same name while the latter is a disambiguation page). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No notable media that goes by this term as with 2020 (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to September 9, there is only one plausible target that has been presented. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above - 9/9 could mean absolutely anything ..... I can't imagine anyone would be searching for this term but even if they are I highly doubt they're wanting to read 0.999.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to September 9, as a far more likely search target. If someone can think of any other possible meanings, there could always be a disambiguation in place, at which point I still wouldn't think 0.999... should be listed there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Retargeting to September 9 doesn't seem like something that is consistently done for similar fractions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every plausible search string needs to bring up a page. Navigational value is minuscule and not worth the hatnotes that would be needed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: What hatnotes would be needed? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever the redirect points, you'd need hatnotes to the other meanings, I guess. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what other meanings are there? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1, for example. 9/9 is equal to the rational number 1; it's not obvious why you would pick out the 0.999... representation for it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but do you really think someone would use "9/9" to search for 1? This form isn't discussed at 1, for example. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really, but I also don't think it's a likely search term for 0.999.... I suppose a straight retarget to September 9 would also be OK, though I don't see much value in it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just had an idea - Why not create a disambiguation like 9/7 ? .... As pointless as I think it is I'd imagine there's a whole ton more of these so why not create it as a disambiguation instead ? CoffeeWithMarkets, AngusWOOF, Lenticel, Tavix, Deacon Vorbis, Sławomir Biały. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: What would such a disambiguation look like? The example you used is a disambiguation of two dates, but in both month-day and day-month notation, 9/9 is September 9. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the perfect time to admit I've only had 4 hours sleep so clearly aint with it today!, Apologies everyone just ignore me!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it would be acceptable to have a diambiguation at this title if the dates were ambiguous, but since it's not ambiguous you think it should be deleted because 9/9 "could mean absolutely anything"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop reading so much into comments here - In a spur-of-the-moment I made an ill-thought suggestion and immediately back-tracked upon yourself correcting me ..... So that really should be the end of the discussion. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to figure out what else could plausibly be "9/9" other than September 9. You made a comment that "9/9" could mean "absolutely anything", so it'd be useful for the purposes of this discussion to delve into that and help me get to how you came to that conclusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to September 9, plausible target. feminist (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2018 (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 speedy deleted. I blocked the editor that created this and went through and deleted their recent creations as R3, though one can make a case for G3 and G10 as well for this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That monkey-looking guy that everyone wears on their T-shirts → Che Guevara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This would be G10 if Guevara were living. As it is, this is just a frivolous attack on a dead person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and add That mustache and crazy hair Socialist Guy that is everyone wears on their T-shirts as well. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and other recently-created WTF redirects by the same user [2] like one mentioned by Imzadi1979, White language, White languages, Lkj;lkslkjfdslkjfdsalk;jfed;lkjfkjfdsa;lkjfdsa;lkjfdsa;dsalkjfdslkjfdsalkjfdalkj;fdsa;lkjfdsa;lkjfdsalkj;fdsalkjdfsalkjdfs;lkjfdsa;lkjfdsa;lkjfdsa;lkjfdsa;dsjfkdkds;kfjsdkfja;fdjksjfkdjflkdsjfkdjfkdsja;jdfakfaf, etc. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G3. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prehistoric great floods → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric great flood → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric floods → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric flooding → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric flood → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric deluges → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Prehistoric deluge → Outburst flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Outburst floods aren't necessarily prehistoric - one could happen in the future. And great floods aren't necessarily outburst, the disappearance of the Everglades due to global warming would certainly qualify. There is also a whole bunch of mythology this term could refer to. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - As with 'Great flood', I think that the first two redirects should go to 'Flood myth'. The other ones are far more ambiguous, though, and I can see simply deleting them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Equating "prehistoric" (which is generally a scientific term) with mythology is not really advisable. I would just delete them as having no clear redirect target._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:16, 23 March 2018 (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.