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) 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2029 Rugby League World Cup → Rugby League World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect is misleading due to the fact that there is no content on the 2029 edition at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is 11 years in the future, more than two competitions away - and that assumes the four-yearly interval format lasts longer than any previous schedule has done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. In some similar cases it might be worth having redirects like these to discourage the creation of articles that would fall foul of WP:TOOSOON, that probably won't be necessary in this case for at least a few more years, if ever. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:00, 26 October 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 until the film gets an official name, then maybe revisit. (Thryduulf prompted me to close this early after he changed his mind.) Deryck C. 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Avengers: Annihilation → Untitled Avengers film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unconfirmed. Just a rumour. Even if this proves to be true later, there's no deadline. We should not be creating pages based on rumours, that will be unencyclopedic. --Let There Be Sunshine 14:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some rumours and speculation that appears in reliable sources is significant enough to include in encyclopaedia articles, and search terms related to that content can make good redirects in some cases. However, there is no mention of this rumoured title in the article and looking at the edit history it appears there is no consensus to include it, meaning the redirect isn't useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least until the title is confirmed. The Express is an awful paper and not a reliable source, but people do read it (along with the many other sources reporting this name) and someone who reads it and then searches for this isn't going to be confused or otherwise inconvenienced by being taken to this target. That is to say, someone who has searched for this phrase will certainly be looking for this target, and I see no reason to believe that the target's failure to mention the phrase would cause them difficulties. This isn't like most other redirects that aren't mentioned in the target, where confusion is possible and unhelpfulness is likely. If this isn't the film's title, then the redirect will cease to be useful and can be deleted, but until that point I think the positives outweigh the negatives. This is especially the case when the film's article is at an unnatural "Untitled x" title which is a less likely search term than an actual title, even if that actual title is rumoured and/or incorrect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This rumor's pretty old. A&H's reasoning seems solid to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this title to have it's own rumor title, Like Avengers: Endgame, there is no deadline until the new title has been announced. This is what we mean for. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm persuaded by the arguments following mine that this is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jackknife Lee → Jacknife Lee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect from a misspelling of a person's name. Only two links in the User space link here so its usefulness is not proven. Also it shouldn't be hard to spell someone's name correctly. I propose deletion. ElizaOscar (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Jackknife is the usual spelling (Jack + knife = Jackknife) so it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Lee uses that spelling. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm a huge deletionist when it comes to redirects based on unlikely spelling errors, but even I think this is a completely plausible misspelling. Thegreatluigi (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 25 October 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) 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This species name redirects to its genus article. An article should be written or it should be a red link to encourage the writing of a future article.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the final point of WP:RDEL: the species is presumably independently notable, but only mentioned as an item on a list in the target. We have many Redirects to monotypic taxa, but Odonestis is not a monotypic taxon. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:42, 26 October 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Glass cactus → Gaylord Texan Resort Hotel & Convention Center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently this is a night club, but there is no mention of it in the article so the redirect fails WP:astonish. MB 02:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No information for this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:CHEAP and the article itself, "the Glass Cactus nightclub located at the hotel was named one of Billboard magazine's 25 Hottest Clubs in North America in 2012". --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google results suggest that the nightclub is what someone who searches for this is most likely to be looking for, and the sourced mention in the target (added by 59.149.124.29 shortly after this nomination was begun) provides enough information on this probably non-notable topic to be useful. @MB: do you want to add Glass Cactus to this nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I nominated this, it was not mentioned in the article but now that it is, Keep is fine and there is no need to add Glass Cactus. MB 19:13, 26 October 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 Oceanic climate#Marine west coast (Cfb). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Marine west coast → Köppen climate classification#Group C  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Marine west coast climate → Oceanic climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects should redirect to the same place. Where should they redirect to? 173.166.74.233 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget/Refine both to Oceanic climate#Marine west coast (Cfb) where there is a long section of prose with this (almost) exact title. The word "marine" does not appear in the current version of the Köppen climate classification article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and refine respectively per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:32, 26 October 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.