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 disambiguate. Made a quick draft dab from Thryduulf's suggestions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooling unit → Refrigerator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to air conditioner or even fan. Probably best to delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make a dab. It's a very common term used either for types of air conditioner, sometimes for fan or for types of refrigeration unit, which is the sense I originally used it. I'd disambiguate it to all three. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• However, none of the three seem to use the term “cooling unit” for describing any of them in a technical capacity though; calling any of them “cooling unit” is almost comparable to calling a cash register a “money device” ... it’s just vague. It would probably be better for the title to be deleted so that readers can utilize Wikipedia’s search function to look up “cooling unit” and locate whatever subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. When I search google for "cooling unit" I get lots of products advertising themselves as such, these products are a mix of technologies including fan (machine), Air conditioner, Evaporative cooler, and refrigerator components. Someone looking for any of these may well search for the term on Wikipedia to learn more about the technology or product involved (it's the sort of thing I do when researching a purpose and I'd be astounded if I was alone). Chiller would also be useful as an entry or see also. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Single brand retail → Retail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is not clear on what this redirect represents. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Multi brand retail → Retail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article is not clear what subject this WP:PRECISE redirect represents. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could also refer to sales. May be best to just delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete This is quite a likely search term, but Retail, Sale (disambiguation) and Sales (disambiguation) are all fairly equal targets. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Between a Rock and a Hard Place. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Between a rock and a hard place → Dilemma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently redirects to Dilemma. Seems more natural to redirect to the disambiguation page Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which links to both this usage and others. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Either retarget per nom or move the dab page to this capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Worlds biggest retailers → Retail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such mention or list at target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have lists of largest corporations (usually by revenue) in several sectors inlcuding IT, internet, financial services, shipbuilding and travel, but I can't find any equivalent for retailers. We do have List of largest shopping malls but that would be a secondary topic linked from a hanote at the list of largest retail companies. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 soft delete. Deryck C. 10:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nigel Tempest → Dexter's Laboratory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know how this relates to the animated series even slightly. Google doesn't have anything connecting this name with Dexter's Laboratory. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I haven't the faintest idea what this is supposed to be. I suspect I could have just deleted it as a G1, but maybe I'm missing something. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. If content is re-added, feel free to recreate or restore. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tubgirl → Shock site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Tub girl → Shock site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tub Girl → Shock site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tubgirl.com → Shock site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in article (except in a redirect template) funplussmart (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tubgirl was mentioned there a long time ago, but someone had it taken out. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added three similar redirects and pointers to previous RFDs. Apparently the target article hasn't had any content about this site for 10 years. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch that, content about this site has been added and removed multiple times over the years. The most recent removal seems to be from 2014. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - no harm against keeping it, redirects are cheap. It's a plausible search term that takes readers to a relevant article. It's quite possible the entry is re-added later and then we'd have to remake these redirects. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 4 years is definitely long enough to be called "stable". There has been no mention of the title topic in the target article for 4 years, so we shouldn't keep the redirects. Deryck C. 12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Deryck C.. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary and unlikely "lack of space" typo, considering Stop (song) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WT/WB → Visa Waiver Program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WT and WB are the status abbreviations for "Visa Waiver - Tourist" and "Visa Waiver - Business". See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(2). So some sources lump them together as "WT/WB status", e.g. various universities trying to explain this stuff to foreigners visiting for conferences [1][2], or Divine, Robert C. (2014). Immigration Practice (15th ed.). Juris Publishing. p. 7-84. ISBN 9781578233465..) Could be added to the target article, though there's probably lots of other things this abbreviation could refer to as well. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 59.149, who showed that the abbreviation WT/WB is used by some sources to refer to the target topic. Until we have a competing primary topic, this redirect is useful and harmless. Deryck C. 13:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 59.149. feminist (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, and include some explanation of the "WT/WB status" usage in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 15:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Kulavadhu-film-poster.jpg → File:Kulavadhu (1963).jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "poster" label is incorrect, since this is a CD cover. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The redirect is not causing any harm, considering that name requirements for redirects in the “File:” namespace do not necessary have to be useful search terms, especially if the redirect is a ((R from move)). In addition, the redirect does not shadow the title of a page on Wikimedia Commons, meaning that it’s not causing any technical issues that need to be resolved by deleting the redirect per ((Db-redircom)). (However, the nominator of this redirect needs to be WP:TROUT-ed. This redirect was created after the nominator moved the file to a more appropriate title, but afterwards, did not update the incoming file link (I fixed the incoming file link.) Usually, that’s not a big problem, but since the nominator immediately broke the redirect by placing ((Rfd)) on it, a bot marked the target page as orphaned.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943. I also endorse the application of a trout if this has not yet been done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Category:Sporting goods retailers. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sports Store → Retail  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This originally targeted Store, a disambiguation page. Then, I retargeted it to Retail since Retail store redirects there. But, in all honesty, I don’t think there is an appropriate target for this redirect and it should probably be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget Category:Sporting goods retailers, which is effectively "list of sports stores". But this will be a main to category XNR hence "weak". Deryck C. 09:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Deryck Chan, I can't find anything better. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 move without redirect to Suicide and bullying. Consensus that the current redirect is unhelpful but the edit history should not be preserved using a history merge. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullying the third leading cause of suicide → Bullying and suicide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete An unclear, unsourced, redirect. Where, globally? When, 2017? Though note the redirect was merged into the target and does have a edit history. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and history merge per above. Catrìona (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from merge)). A history merge is suitable only for fixing cut-and-paste moves not for merging the histories of two separate pages that were later merged. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move edit history to a different plausible title/redirect, then delete this redirect. History hiding under a not-so-helpful redirect title should not alone be a reason to keep a redirect. The nominator has stated a good case for why this title is not helpful as a search term, and I concur. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect per Steel1943. Suicide and bullying perhaps? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 soft delete as unopposed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Abu Sayyaf al-Shihr → Said Ali al-Shihri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article, and I can find no evidence that Said Ali al-Shihri is/was known as Abu Sayyaf. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Monica Gallagher (actress) → List of Shameless characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlike the nominations below, there is no actress called Monica Gallagher, there's only a fictional character (who doesn't appear to be an actress). —Xezbeth (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at the history, it seems it's left over from a move - "moved Monica Gallagher (actress) to Monica Gallagher (fictional character): Mistake to be corrected. Monica Gallagher is a fictional character played by an actress, not an actress". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Sarah Fisher (disambiguation). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah Fisher (actress) → List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Sarah Fisher (actor) → List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an actress who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Degrassi. A reader looking for information on her is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we have any content about her at all, it's better for readers searching for her to be directed to it (or at least to what she's best known for if she's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about her. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it better? Why would someone searching for an actress that appeared in [insert series here] be remotely interested in a list of characters for a different series? We do have nothing so a redlink represents that the best. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And how is denying a person who *is* looking for an actress who appeared in the series that we direct to a solution to that? Just write a stub - you'll improve Wikipedia better that way than trying to get useful redirects deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They're looking for an actress, not a character. The redirect is completely useless in all contexts. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know specifically what they are looking for - how do you know they're not thinking "What's the name of that character they played in...?" Btw, have I suggested you write a stub? You probably could have written it by now if you'd tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you? Your answer to that question will be the same as mine. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one complaining about the redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Sarah Fisher (disambiguation), and do the ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sarah Egerton (actress), a notable actress who was known as "Sarah Fisher" before marriage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Although she was born "Sarah Fisher", is there any evidence she was ever professionally known by that name? It doesn't say anything in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article mentions her acting from 1803–1809 before she was married. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true, but what's the likelihood people searching for her will be thinking of her as "Sarah Fisher"? I'm not sure how to decide the best primary topic here, or whether it might be better as a two-entry disambig page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point. With no primary topic, the best solution would be to retarget to Sarah Fisher (disambiguation) and tag the redirects with ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Void Stamp → Rubber stamp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Four participants is enough to get me to delete something from 2002, but I just want to note that this is from 2002! Article ID of 72461. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Postage stamp/how dispensed → Postage stamp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a speedy deletion candidate to me. --Slashme (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Creator has been community site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If he wasn't banned when he created it, that is not relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and the redirect wasn't created by a banned editor anyway - he created this. Someone else turned it into a redirect later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

• Delete Per nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 16:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbiubium → Systematic element name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This never-before visited redirect has existed for quite sometime as a typo that had been pushed under the rug, and the intent for the redirect is too unclear for whether it is a typo for Unbibium or for Unbiunium, two currently unsynthesized elements that happen to have similar names, leaving readers who might possibly make this spelling error (there haven't been any) on the wrong page, with it being a letter off of both. Left alone for 13 and some years, this redirect (which links to a page where it isn't mentioned, because Unbiubium with this spelling cannot exist) should finally be discontinued. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . I just changed target into Unbibium (recently created; old target wsa sensible too). no harm, not in the way. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per YBG below: conflation of two correct names, and so countereffective. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this seems IMHO to be an unlikely misspelling. But I could easily be persuaded otherwise by evidence that we have created other similar redirects or by evidenced that this misspelling is more likely than I think. YBG (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) But if it is kept, DePiep has landed on the correct target, as is demonstrated by the article history. YBG (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that the information in the history is sufficient to merit history merging. If someone thinks otherwise, ping me and I will take a closer look. YBG (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:XY for multiple typos but not the correct name of anything. However, content was merged from Unbiubium to Unbibium. So for WP:ATTREQ purposes, the history currently at Unbiubium should be retained somewhere else, e.g. by moving it to a ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) title like Unbibium (element). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:XY: which are the two target articles? Since article ununbium exists, the target is clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article name is a potential misspelling for either unbibium or unbiunium. YBG (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this makes sense, YBG. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content wasn't merged, but it was tagged with the merge tag, but afterwards just redirected. Christian75 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for the merger says Add 2 sentences from Unbiubium, before turing that into a redirect to this. Those two sentences indeed came from the old version of Unbiubium. So it wasn't just redirected. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that edit summary? I can't find it in any of the targets (looking for the years 2014 and 2015 when the subject was redirected). Maybe I'm looking the wrong place? Christian75 (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long long ago in ancient history: Special:Diff/8695696 (sorry, I posted the link in my first comment, but it was a bit of a WP:SUBMARINE). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My mistake. When I said it wasn't merged I looked in 2014 and not 2004. Therefore, I couldn't find your quote either... I agree. The history should be wp:History merged if this redirect is deleted. Christian75 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and WP:S (autocorrecting "fuzzy" searches); this could be one of a long list of unlikely misspellings that does not need a devoted redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; WP:XY was my original motive for why I created the RfD, but I never explicitly stated it in the appeal. The redirect could point to either Unbibium or Unbiunium, and even if the version history shows that it was originally intended to be for Unbibium, it still is close to Unbiunium. All in all, it redirecting to Systematic element name was definitely NOT the redirect to make. And to refute the idea that it could be a possible typo; according to the Wikimedia pageview tool, it has received 0 views over its lifetime. I stumbled upon it while using the Wikimedia redirect viewer, and it baffled me that it existed. Not sure if the original poster can provide a vote, but I figured I'd weigh my two cents on the topic. I left more info on the redirect talk page if anybody want to see. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.