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 per G7. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP.NOTBROKEN → Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Another misformatted cross-namespace redirect (uses the period instead of the colon). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry about that. The use of the period was a typo on my part. Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 7 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 三叔 → Infernal Affairs II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ordinary Chinese word meaning "third uncle" (specifically, dad's third younger brother). Unfortunately, Chinese kinship#Common extended family and terminology doesn't mention it, or even the general pattern of prefixing numbers to kinship terms in Chinese. Wiktionary also doesn't have this term (not sure if it would be barred under wikt:WT:NISOP or what). Instead it's pointing to a movie which has a minor character by this name.

There's lots of other equally obscure fictional characters by this name (e.g. there's one mentioned in The Lost Tomb). We could make a giant useless page of obscure WP:DABMENTIONs that would require maintenance forever as more and more movies come out and cast sections on existing movies get more detailed, or we could just delete and recreate it when some Wikipedia article that goes into enough detail on Chinese kinship terminology to cover this term. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no suitable target. feminist (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generic Chinese kinship term with no obvious proper noun primary topic. Deryck C. 12:23, 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. Although unused, there's a few sentences of content from a previous attempt at an article; if someone wants it they need only ask! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Open Back-End → Front and back ends#Computer science  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The target does not mention "Open", and did not even do so in August 2011 when Miracle Pen (talk · contribs) redirected it.[1] I'm proposing deletion after an editor rightly objected to it at Talk:OBE (disambiguation), where the disambiguation entry was: * Open Back-End, the accessibility of a software application's underlying software or data. – Fayenatic London

Comment (I don't even remember this.) "Open" just means (depending on context) "open source" or "non-discriminatory", so there's no particular reason why the target should have to mention it (do we need separate articles for "open" back ends and presumably non-open ones?). The term isn't particularly useful though. Also, the entry at the dabpage is meaningless and worthless. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a good example of a redirect without mention causing confusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:09, 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.