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 procedural close - no longer a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand Siècle → Louis XIV of France  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

To my mind, neither a good nor appropriate redirect. The redirect term does not even occur once (except for the title of a reference work), and is neither identical or synonymous with nor to be simply reduced exclusively to the target. The latter is a biography, while the redirect lemma denotes a period in cultural history. Hildeoc (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As this is a notable topic, I've converted the redirect into a short article. There is also a corresponding article on the French Wikipedia. MarkZusab (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2019 (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 speedy keep. Sources found, withdrawing. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Isaengmang → Sampo generation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've tried Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Bahasa Indonesia but can't find any language in which this word corresponds to the subject. It also means "anyone" in Filipino, but that seems neither here nor there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Top Google hit was this: [1]. Plenty of others too, so seems legit? PC78 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had found nothing on DuckDuckGo, but yeah that seems good enough. I'll go ahead and speedy close this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 26 April 2019 (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 speedy Redirect converted to article. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Padsan River → Sarrat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to me to be a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, the Padsan River appears to exist outside Sarrat as well, and thus it likely meets WP:GEOLAND _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ilocos Norte would probably be a better target, but leaning towards delete per nom. PC78 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it to List of rivers of the Philippines. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of rivers of the Philippines - The Padsan River is a major river with what seems to have been a significant cultural impact over the centuries. I was thinking of expanding it into an article, but was still looking for sources. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia but based on what I've been told, isn't it harder to re-create an article once a redirect article was deleted? Thanks. - Koakaulana (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koakaulana: if there had previously been an article for Padsan River, which was then converted to a redirect and then deleted, we would lose the edit history from the original article. However, if it's only been a redirect, we don't really lose anything. Although if you are actively planning on creating an article, then it's not terribly important for us to delete the redirect since the issue will soon be addressed anyway. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Well, I've gone and done it. The article is a stub but I added seven references which I think others might be able to use to expand it into a better article. - Koakaulana (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2019 (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 Alt-right. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Right → Richard B. Spencer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this is the name of a web publication Spencer founded, I think it's much more likely someone searching for this term is looking for the Alt-right in general. AlternativeRight.com is still a suitable redirect for Spencer; I'm undecided on AlternativeRight, but leaning towards saying it should follow this one. BDD (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alt-right per above reasoning. At first I thought this might be a WP:DIFFCAPS issue (cf. Alternative right), but I see that some sources do use the title-case version for the movement itself, notably the SPLC. Other sources use a mixture of alternative right, alternative Right, and Alternative Right: [2][3]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alt-right. It is in fact incorrect to write "Alternative right". See e.g. New Right. wumbolo ^^^ 08:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. A hatnote can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alt-right as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 April 2019 (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Criminal court → Criminal justice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a confusing redirect, and I can't imagine why it points here.
Proposal: Disambiguate or Retarget to Criminal law. My preference is the former since we don't have an article on this subject (provides the most context/info). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to agree with the nominator. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per nominator. Note that Criminal Court is a film, and needs to be linked from wherever this title leads - either as an entry on a dab page or as a hatnote on any other page, and the film article needs a reciprocal hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This definitely relates more to Criminal law than Criminal justice, but it can refer to other topics as well, such as International Criminal Court. I considered whether this should be a WP:BCA instead, but Civil court is not an article, but instead redirects to Lawsuit. feminist (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. There's a clear primary topic, but this topic doesn't really correspond to any article. The best we can do is to create a dab page defining the term (with links to Court and Criminal law), and add an entry for Criminal Court (the film). I've drafted one below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, as drafted currently that dab will not satisfy those who maintain dab pages and it's likely going to just get redirected to Court or Criminal law (with a hatnote to the film added at the target), neither of which do a good job for readers using this search term. I can't think of any easy way to fix or improve it either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if there is consensus here for disambiguating (the dab page has got two valid main entres and four acceptable links overall, so I don't see how that could be easily challenged), then those who maintain dab pages can feel free to reorganise it into whatever format they deem suits the situation best. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it should be acceptable but my experience says that it wont be - many of those who work on dab pages prioritise their guidelines for what a dab page should be over what is most beneficial to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (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 speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, upon review the redirect is appropraite. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cellophane tape → Pressure-sensitive tape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cellulose tape → Pressure-sensitive tape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm pretty sure that cellophane and cellulose tape are not necessarily pressure-sensitive, and the target doesn't mention either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 26 April 2019 (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 speedily deleted by Nyttend. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiritualistic research → Mediumship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Spiritualistic research" is not mentioned in the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:I created the "spiritualistic research" redirect, but it can be deleted if you want. I wrote a little text on "spiritualistic research" for the article on "multiverse (religion)", and there seemed to be a need for a seperate main page on the subject. However, it has been decided to choose the "mediumship" page as the main page, although not all mediumship can be characterised as experimental "spiritualistic research". For this reason, and because the mediumship page didn't contain any information on ITC, we (me and a co-editor) also referred to the "Electronic voice phenomenon" page as a second "see also" option. This combination was sufficient for our purpose of referencing on the "multiverse (religion)" page. Therefore, a separate page on "spiritualistic research" was no longer necessary, so I changed it into a redirect, but - like said before - you can remove it if you want. I am only a beginning editor, and didn't know how to delete a page. --S.w.goedhart (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S.w.goedhart: Having read through the articles you linked, my understanding of the situation is as follows: Multiverse (religion) has a section titled "spiritualistic research" referring to research into the properties of the multiverse. However, Mediumship deals with the much broader subject of spiritual mediums, which in most contexts are not really being used in what could be considered a "research" capacity, and it doesn't include the phrase "spiritualistic research". At this time, unless reliable sources can be found that specifically discuss "spiritualistic research" by name, I think we're best off deleting this redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted, because S.w.goedhart's statement means that we can treat this as speedy criterion G7, author-requested-deletion. S.w.goedhart, for future reference, this deletion doesn't mean that we can't ever have a page by this title again. If you can find solid, reliable sources on the subject of "spiritualistic research", you're welcome to write an article about it, or if they treat spiritualistic research as a sub-topic of something else, feel free to add information about it to our article on the other topic and then re-create this title as a redirect to the other page. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2019 (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. - Nabla (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uniform criminal code → Indian criminal law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not an expert on this subject, but 1) the target article doesn't mention "uniform criminal code" 2) an internet search does bring up results about a "uniform criminal code" in the Indian context, but also in the context of other countries _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No such term exist in Indian law. It's a pun on the term Uniform civil code.--Let There Be Sunshine 07:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning Delete. Apart from India, there are a number of uniform codes promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission. Some of the better-known ones are the Uniform Commercial Code, Uniform Gifts to Minors Act and Uniform Trade Secrets Act; a longer list is at List of Uniform Acts (United States). But they don't have one for general substantive aspects of criminal law. There is such a (lower-case) uniform criminal code, but that's the Model Penal Code, promulgated by the American Law Institute. Maybe if there is some evidence that some have referred to the MPC as a "uniform criminal code" it might be worth redirecting there, but I'm leaning no; delete would probably be better. TJRC (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in google results I'm finding mostly hits about calls for a uniform criminal code, mostly relating to either India or Australia, but also some relating to the US or Mexico. There are also a few results relating to India that are clearly intended to refer to the Uniform Civil Code. It wouldn't surprise me if a notable article could be written about the various Australian proposals and a hatnote on that article pointing to the Indian civil code would be appropriate, but I'm not certain what the best solution is in the absence of that as it's clearly a plausible search term but with no clear target just several that would work as see-alsos or "not to be confused with" entries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2019 (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 speedily deleted by Fastily. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Fireflies Everywhere → Little Fires Everywhere  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I created this as an article, not realizing I spelled the title wrong. Instead of Fireflies, it’s Fires. And the article already exists at another location. I’m moving to have this redirect deleted as it’s not of value for anything considering it’s not the right name. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rusted AutoParts: Just request speedy deletion per WP:G7. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything You Need To Know → Blackout (Britney Spears album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reference on target, according to the history of the redirect it might have been one of the rumoured titles for an upcoming album. Can't find any better/suitable alternative target, there are loads of 'Everything You Need to Know About..." Please note capitalization error. Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see any evidence that this was ever a working title for the album, my best guess looking at the page history is that this is a misunderstanding of a web page titled "Everything You Need To Know About Britney Spears' Fifth Studio Album". No other reason to keep, this page was created as a copy & paste of the main article: compare [4] with [5]. PC78 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as likely mistaken assumption of title. Potentially confusing with Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 27 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here I Come (Britney Spears') → Blackout (Britney Spears album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No 'Here I Come' on the target page, but contains a typo with an apostrophe anyway Richhoncho (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but also as a bot "corrected" copy of a redirect that was already deleted in 2016. PC78 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:57, 26 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrecogonized country → List of states with limited recognition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Unrecogonized countries → List of states with limited recognition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete as implausible typo (WP:R3). Place Clichy (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the previous voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per implausible typo. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator. 09:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumrezarock100 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (anime) Bleach → Bleach (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Anime (Bleach) → Bleach (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguator is in the wrong place. This started off as an article that should have been speedied but was inexplicably turned into a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. The misplaced disambiguators make these unlikely search terms. PC78 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. The second one especially, which looks like it redirects to a brand of bleach called "Anime". InvalidOStalk 16:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as bad disambiguation format. The proper one Bleach (anime) already exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally bad redirect. No one's gonna search it like this. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:51, 3 May 2019 (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 speedily deleted by Mojo Hand. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhawanipur(mansurchak) → Bhawanipur (Begusarai)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing links here and the two errors make it a very implausible search term. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL and WP:G6, i.e. "a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title". PC78 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2019 (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 speedily deleted by Shirt58 per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "walter brune → Walter Brune  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same as below except this one is also missing a quotation mark, so that's three errors. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per below but also WP:G6 as "a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title". PC78 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2019 (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 speedily deleted per WP:G6. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "samara lubelski" → Samara Lubelski  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "todor toshev" → Todor Toshev  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "tony babalu" → Tony Babalu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "alina simone" → Alina Simone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "glenda leon" → Glenda León  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "carlos aragone" → Carlos Aragone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "bernhard cella" → Bernhard Cella  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "anastasia masaro" → Anastasia Masaro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "eva marks" → Eva Marks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• "chang ung" → Chang Ung  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• "damago soto" → Damago Soto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• "archie r boe" → Archie R. Boe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe this is every instance of an all lower case redirect to a biography that is also within quotations. With two huge errors they have no value as redirect, and the only reason they get any traffic at all is because they appear near the front of Special:AllPages. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per prior discussion. Unnecessary quotation marks make unlikely search terms. PC78 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had a closer look, "anastasia masaro" and "archie r boe" require a history merge before deletion since they are left over from cut & paste moves, the rest are all G6-able per above. PC78 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Note Anthony Bradbury has speedily deleted all of those not noted as needing a history merge under criterion WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge completed by Anthony Appleyard and the rest now deleted. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ＃willpower → Willpower (will.i.am album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃WarGames → WarGames (interactive media)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃sukinanda → Sukinanda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

• ＃SukiNanda → Sukinanda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃SukiNanDa → Sukinanda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃SaveRahaf → Rahaf Mohammed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃Metoo → Me Too movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• ＃MeToo → Me Too movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  - this one has a prior nomination, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#＃MeToo, which was withdrawn before discussion concluded.

• ＃GamerGate → Gamergate controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete "How is this possible?" you ask. "I thought Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) prevented titles from having #, the number sign, in their titles!" Fear not, knowledgeable Wikipedian, you're not crazy: these redirects actually have ＃, the musical sharp symbol, masquerading as the hashtag-indicating #. But because almost no one has that symbol on their keyboard or knows its ASCII code, these pseudo-hashtag redirects are almost certainly unlinked on the broader internet just as they are here. (Computers are funny that way, requiring an exact match) Allowing them could certainly get very WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @UnitedStatesian: this has already been discussed previously at ‎Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 25#＃MeToo. The thing is that people search for hashtags on WP, and as you know, searching anything that starts with '#' and pressing enter gets you to the main page, which is not the idea. However, try searching "#' in the search bar, and ＃Metoo and other things appear. If you click the link, then you get the page you originally wanted to get to, not the Main Page. So yes, these redirects serve a very useful purpose. Also, when nominating redirects for deletion, try looking in the page history to see if they were previously sent to RfD before nominating the for deletion again. One last thing: when you nominate several redirects at once with the same rationale, group them in one discussion, please. This makes things so much easier. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give a man a minute, will ya? Sheesh! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except ＃Metoo, since it was just created to prove it was possible (as seen in L293D's link) and is redundant to ＃MeToo, per L293D. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on principle, on the basis it works as L293D described. Just a couple of notes. I've deleted #Metoo (created by me as a proof of concept), which I don't think is that useful, as it just pollutes the list. I don't recommend using the ＃ in real article titles. I also think there could be situations in the future where widespread use could become less than desirable. For more on that see the debates about Twitter handles: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_12#Twitter_redirects_recently_created_by_R64Q. These specific examples, however, well most of them, are good uses of this feature. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, highly implausible and prone to causing confusion. Fullwidth characters are comparatively uncommon in English, and using one of them together with halfwidth letters is more unusual, since fullwidth is meant for situations in which halfwidth wouldn't be particularly useful or wouldn't work at all. Combine that with this exceptional usage (how many people would even think of using a fullwidth # to get around this technical limitation?), and the chance of this being typed into the address bar or the search bar is really tiny. What's more, look at the 2018 October 25 discussion — if you do end up at the fullwidth title, you're likely to get confused ("how did this title include a # when most can't?"), or if you find it and you're not aware of # restrictions, you're likely to assume that they can appear in titles and thus be frustrated when they don't work elsewhere. Let's just make things simple — using ♯ and ＃ and any similar characters works (they look like and function like the intended character), so they're a nice idea on paper, but they're disadvantageous to the point that we're better off without them. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Due to the way that the search box handles characters, it is not necessary to use the full-width in the search box. You just need to type the normal hash character. Also most people wouldn't know about technical limitations - if something begins with a hashtag, they'd expect to be able to type the hashtag into the search box. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  But the problem is that for the search box to work in this way, the redirect has to be created: right now these are the ONLY nine hashtags that appear when # is typed in the search box, and for much more likely # search results to also appear, (#BlackLivesMatter, #NeverTrump, all the others in Category:Redirects from hashtags, etc.), these malformed redirects would have to be created for them too: this is what I mean by WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, 42 pages is not a great cost. But I think a more useful metric might be article titles which would have begun with a hashtag if they could - it's probably fewer but I don't think we have a category. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, there is no subcat of Category:Restricted titles just for ones that would have the # at the beginning. My sense from sepnding a fair amount if time in this area is that it is actually more, not less, than the number of redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep except for the capitalization variants for sukinanda. The song just uses #sukinanda or the Japanese #好きなんだ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because although these redirects do use a pseudo-hashtag, for commonly used hashtags (like #MeToo) where the hashtag name is known possibly even more well than any other alternative name, so readers will search for the hashtag name. If you put in the search bar "#" it will bring up the pseudo-hashtag pages as search results. If editors wanted to link it, then it isn't a big deal to do a copy and paste from the redirect in question. I understand that trying to wikilink it may cause errors if the editor used "#" and not the pseudo-hashtag, but this IMO is not a big enough argument for deleting these redirects (as like I said it isn't much of a big deal to copy and paste a small amount of text). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per zzuuzz. I had no idea that these pages would come up if you began a search string with a # character. Because this is true, these are definitely plausible and useful. The confusion issue still arises, but because these pages have a clear purpose, I suppose the better solution is to create more of them so that people won't have grounds to be confused. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2019 (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 Boney M. discography as there is consensus to retarget to this title (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Greatest Hits (Boney M. album) → The Greatest Hits (2001 Boney M. album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are 2 " The Greatest Hits" albums by Boney M. The Greatest Hits (2001 Boney M. album) and The Greatest Hits (1993 Boney M. album). I see no reason to redirect them to any of those. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Boney M. discography where all 38(!) compilation albums are listed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Tavix. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Boney M. discography as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 27 April 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CP( → One Piece#Setting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Unhelpful typo of "CP9" (so the intended target should really be List of One Piece characters#CP9), but could also be interpreted as a typo of other things, i.e. CP, CP(BSTI), CP(B)U, etc. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible and ambiguous typo. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a very plausible typo, but per the above it's hopelessly ambiguous so on balance it's not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a stylization confusion either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 26 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Psionic storm → Races of StarCraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An ability name that is not covered or even mentioned at the target article. Briefly mentioned at StarCraft in esports but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like AngusWoof says. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:23, 27 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target article. Has a brief mention at Betrayal (Star Wars novel) but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could refer to light whipped cream or any kind of light-up whip like the one used by the Balrog. But it is not discussed anywhere of significance, not even at List of Star Wars weapons AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Psionic Spirit Blade → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this is some old D&D meme item? Not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia, unsurprisingly. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some role playing games used that as a non-copyrighted/trademarked name for a light sabre. It was later referenced in The Gamers film franchise. If someone is searching for what one is, the redirect just sends them over to Light Sabre.Sturmovik (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with no context. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 April 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Form I → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Form Zero → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Cho mak → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Cho mai → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Shii-Cho → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

• Djem So → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

• Jar'Kai → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Kai-Kan → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Kai-kan → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Sai cha → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Sai tok → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

• Sun djem → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dun Moch → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Dun Moech → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Dun Möch → Lightsaber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

All of these redirects refer to content that used to be at lightsaber combat, which was merged into the lightsaber article at some point and has since been completely removed. There is no mention of any of these terms. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kaikan may be confused with several name searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 27 April 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gargantuan (Battle Platform) → Star Wars: Empire at War: Forces of Corruption  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A minor Star Wars vehicle, like those listed below, but pointing to a different target. This target makes no mention of it. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not listed at List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 27 April 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Heavy Missile Platform → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't appear to be mentioned at the target article, and the term is far too vague to be of any use. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• HAG (Heavy Artillery Gun) → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• HAG(Heavy Artillery Gun) → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Naboo Destroyer → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ground Armored Tank → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Aratec 520 Battle Platform → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Republic IFT-X Hover Tank → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• MT-AT → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Misc. Rebel ground craft (Star Wars) → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• MPTL → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• MPTL-2a → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• MPTL-2A Artillery → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Storm IV Twin-Pod Cloud Car → List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Various minor fictional vehicles that haven't been mentioned at the target article for over 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and not being a Star Wars Wikia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've looked at the acronyms (e.g. MT-AT) but none of them appear have any notable uses outside this context, so there is nowhere to retarget them. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2019 (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.