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) 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Of Alexandria Chaeremon → Chaeremon of Alexandria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Anjou Rene I → René of Anjou  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Brandenburg Albert I → Albert the Bear  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Brazil Pedro Ii → Pedro II of Brazil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Calacte Caecilius → Caecilius of Calacte  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Cyprus Stasinus → Stasinus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Galilee Cana → Cana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Hanover George V → George V of Hanover  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Hungary Andrew II → Andrew II of Hungary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Kent Wihtred → Wihtred of Kent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Mercia Wulfhere → Wulfhere of Mercia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Phlius Timon → Timon of Phlius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Sabha Ahai → Achai Gaon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Samos Aristarchus → Aristarchus of Samos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Of Valence Aymer → Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I just closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 7#Of Athens Plutarch as "delete", and it was suggested there that similar redirects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/O should also be deleted. I present them now for discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The unusual word order and (lack of) punctuation makes these unlikely to be link targets and therefore useless as redirects. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per David Eppstein. These redirects are not useful with this reversed word order, for they will not be linked and it would be rather unusual to search for them in this way. If they were intended to be index entries, they should at least have commas, but that is a seperate matter for discussion if necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per discussion above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobody's going to search for them under these titles. It's just an artifact of an old article creation process. P Aculeius (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above. Not the title of some media either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:40, 17 December 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) 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Libertarian black-clad-mad-bomberism → Anomie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Invented neologism. Unlikely to be useful. Recommend delete. czar 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons#D8; novel synonym. The only mentions I can find online are Wikipedia mirrors. Glades12 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 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) 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anarchism (Viciousite) → Anarchy in the U.K.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely to be useful. "Viciousite" alone is not a common search term in relation to Sid Vicious. Recommend delete. czar 19:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense on several axes. 1. "Viciousite" is, per nom, not a commonly used term to relate something to Sid Vicious. 2. "Viciousite", were it A Thing (which it is not), would presumably mean "advocating the doctrines of Sid Vicious" (cf. "Trotskyite", "Leninite"), especially when it is modifying a word like "anarchism", which already describes a political philosophy. 3. Sid Vicious wasn't even a member of the Sex Pistols until some months after "Anarchy in the UK" was released. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:36, 17 December 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. As AngusWOOF has not seen fit to introduce the changes suggested in their conditional keep vote, we default to delete. No prejudice against recreation and/or further discussion if someone introduces mention of "Yo dawg" at either of the target articles mentioned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yo dawg → Pimp My Ride#Pop culture references  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect has alternated between Xzibit#Internet meme and Pimp My Ride#Pop culture references. Neither section exists, the first was removed in March 2014, the second in April 2019. Wikipedia currently does not mention anything about the "yo dawg" meme anywhere. Only incoming link is from the article Know Your Meme. This redirect is now useless. Delete. JIP | Talk 13:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional keep, if discussed in Legacy section. https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/yo-dawg-we-heard-you-hate-bloggers-blogging-about-blog-memes-6520611 https://www.theversed.com/94971/20-best-memes-ever-seen/#.hZBs6xxKI5 https://theblast.com/c/xzibit-pimp-my-ride-meme-white-guy AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, neither of the target articles mentions anything about the "yo dawg" meme. At this moment this redirect is all Wikipedia contains about it. JIP | Talk 19:39, 8 December 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 Hell or High Water. (dab page) czar 19:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell, or High Water → Numbers (Woe, Is Me album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should we keep this redirect (with a comma) targeting the album on which it is a song, or retarget to the more general disambiguation page Hell or High Water? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The comma wouldn't normally be part of the phrase this way, and given the band's name has the same affectation, I think it makes sense to treat it as intentional. A hatnote would be fine, though. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add redirects here / hatnote to disambiguation as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hell or High Water. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page. No crystal ball. Per Airbornemihir. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I've already !voted, I'll just say I think it'd be confusing to have two substantially similar redirects, one with a single comma and one without, pointing to two different places. Seems like unnecessary hatnotes to the dab page, personally. Doug Mehus T·C 16:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page. Google "helpfully" ignores the comma in my search term but even so I'm not seeing the song as a high likelihood target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dab page per above. buidhe 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the band's name Woe, Is Me also has those intentional commas and that Hell or Highwater project has its own page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: Noted. They'll be mentioned on the dab page, if they aren't already. Doug Mehus T·C 00:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R from song)). Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of intent here, but I think someone searching for this title (with the comma) is specifically looking for the song, not one of the other topics on the dab page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is the only usage with the comma. Since it's a highly unusual comma placement, I find it very unlikely for someone to search for a different usage with this same comma. Perhaps a hatnote could be deployed just in case. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think retargeting to the dab page makes the most sense. No evidence of primary topic here, and who is to say someone entering either phrase wants some music album?Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic for what? "Hell or High Water"? No, no one's talking about moving that disambiguation page. "Hell, or High Water"? Yes, I think so—what other topic has a claim to this name? --BDD (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, thanks for the reply. I assumed Tavix was thinking the Numbers album was primary topic thus !voting to keep targeted to the current target. I think retargeting to the dab page that Airbornemihir first proposed and now Headbomb makes the most sense per my above !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to dab Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to dab Nardog (talk) 13:32, 15 December 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. While Thryduulf is correct that redirect titles do not need to be neutral, there was a consensus that a single suitable alternative target does not exist and that deletion is preferable. G5 speedy deletion is intended for cleaning up uncontroversially inappropriate pages created by blocked users, and thus isn't really appropriate once multiple editors with varying opinions are involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Occupied territories of Pakistan → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

POV Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom,  Ymblanter -DBigXrayᗙ 10:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Redirects do not have to be neutral and google shows this is an established term, so it makes sense for it to exist. That said the current target is not really ideal, and somewhere that explains the dispute and why some people consider the area to be an occupied part of Pakistan would be better. My first thought for this is Kashmir conflict, but we have many articles on this topic so there may be something better. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and similar point to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. while Occupied Kashmir points to Kashmir conflict. There are also Special:PrefixIndex/Occupied territories of for a few other countries, though mostly those are separate articles. OTOH, if there are other territories besides Kashmir which might be described as "Occupied territories of Pakistani" that might not be the best target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm equally happy with Kashmir#Current status and political divisions as a target. Borders of Pakistan suggests that there are no other territories that might be considered occupied areas of Pakistan. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not true. There is an Indian POV out there that considers Balochistan, Pakistan to be also occupied. The problem here is the use of "occupied." Kashmir is no more or no less occupied by Pakistan than it is by India or China. Unless pages are created for the other two countries and retargeted, it is not a good idea to have this page at all on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other redirects can be created if warranted, that's not relevant to this redirect. Balochistan, Pakistan isn't relevant here either as this is describing territories that (some believe) to be part of Pakistan but which are occupied/administered by a country other than Pakistan - the Indian POV you mention would make Balochistan an occupied territory of India, not of Pakistan. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. As per Thryduulf. I think a good target is Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, the same as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. There are no other "occupied" territories, as far as I know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Changing my !vote[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is obvious POV. Do we have a page, "Occupied territories of India" which is being retargeted? We don't. The entire region of Kashmir is disputed territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether other redirects do or do not exist is not really relevant here, and as noted above being non-neutral is not a reason in and of itself to delete a redirect. Occupied territories of India is an equally well-used phrase so probably should exist also, although it seems to be used equally to refer to territory under the administration of Pakistan and under the administration of China so the best target may or may not be the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The Indian part of Kashmir is not the only territory which Pakistan claims. Junagadh, Bantva and Manavadar are also claimed by Pakistan as its territories (see official map). Then you also have the Sir Creek claims which cover almost half of the area. This redirect could refer to all or any of them (including Indian Kashmir) and as such is ambiguous [unlike say Indian-occupied Kashmir], not to mention I haven't seen the term being used to refer to Indian Kashmir or at all for that matter. Gotitbro (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misnomer without a suitable target. "Occupied territories of X" usually implies a territory of X that at some point has become occupied by Y (as in Occupied territories of Georgia), not simply to territories claimed by X but administered by Y. As pointed out above, Kashmir isn't the only territory with such conflicting claims, and there doesn't seem to be an article that discusses them all (Geography of Pakistan#International boundaries is probably the closest we get). – Uanfala (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The creator has been blocked as a sock, making the redirect eligible for G5.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G5 of Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi (sami) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Cabayi (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uanfala struck my G5 tag on the redir and I'm OK with that. All I ask is that, if this discussion should result in retargeting, the page should be deleted then recreated to WP:DENY the sock any credit. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - On the grounds that it was created by a dubious editor. It is not really common search term, unlike Pakistan occupied Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 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.