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) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boucher On Boujee → Ars Nova (American band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect. This arises from a new article on an apparently non-notable band that was created by overwriting the existing article on the band Ars Nova. The band Boucher On Boujee (if it exists) has no connection with the 1960s band Ars Nova. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:17, 10 February 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) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Non–profit organizations based in California → Category:Non-profit organizations based in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This redirect is rarely used because of the incorrect endash rather than a hyphen. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hyphens instead of endashes (or emdashes) are significantly more useful as redirects than other forms to hyphens, and this is indeed almost never used. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 16 February 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) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• New York movie theaters → Category:Cinemas and movie theaters in New York (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Wikipedia does not have an article about New York movie theatres (Culture of New York City doesn't cover the topic), and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while I can see that a list of notable movie theatres in New York City could be notable, we don't have one and "New York" can also refer to the state, and a listing of (notable) movie theatres in an area that large doesn't seem likely to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 16 February 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) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Isobutyl nitrate → Category:Alkyl nitrates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is there a better target than the currently rather unsatisfactory cross-namespace redirect? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if there is a better target I can't find it. We have Isobutyl nitrite, but that isn't the same thing (aiui) (although the two should be linked by hatnotes if this isn't deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 16 February 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) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• End of Reason → Asking Alexandria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• EndOfReason → Asking Alexandria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. Not even mentioned at Asking Alexandria discography. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The overwhelming primary topic on Google is a book The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists by Ravi Zacharias that is commonly abbreviated to "The End of Reason". If we had an article on the book this would make a good redirect to it, but we don't and while we do have an article about the author it gets a mention only as an entry in the extensive bibliography section so wouldn't make a good target. The closest article I can find we do have is Freedom and the End of Reason (a different book by a different author) but that would be a partial title match, that book doesn't seem to be abbreviated to this and it would be a WP:SURPRISE for anyone looking for the Ravi Zacharias book - three good reasons why it wouldn't redirect there. In the absence of any target we're left with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 10 February 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) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 nonillion → Names of large numbers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, nonillion already existed B dash (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other large numbers over 1 billion do not have redirects of this type and setting a predcedent might be WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 10 February 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Faqir Ali Muhammad Gilkar Sahab → Faqir Ali Muhammad Gilkar Sahab  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Left from unnecessary page move to wrong name space MB 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Eligible for WP:G6. Tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 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) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Berlin 2019 → 69th Berlin International Film Festival  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, per criterion 2: may cause confusion. This redirect is temporally related: it might make sense now, because the Berlin IFF is going on this week; but what about the week of September 28, which will see the 2019 Berlin Marathon? Not to mention the rest of the year, when countless other major events and conferences take place in this major world capital. Possible alternative: convert to a DAB page, but with what entries on it? Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible with the wiki software to keep the redirect and then transform it to a disambiguation page at that point when a shining contributor can add sufficiently to it. The genius of the wiki inventors was in keeping it simple, where article, disambig, and redirect all flow into each other. Only the blank article is useless in this context. -Inowen (nlfte) 12:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:2019 in Berlin has just two items. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User:Inowen is blocked and will not be able to respond to questions or comments. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone provides evidence that either or both of these events are known as "Berlin 2019". The format does make sense for grandiose events with rotating hosts, like Berlin 1936, Berlin 2006, and Berlin 2009. I don't think these events rise to that occasion, but I'm not going to dismiss it outright. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that there would need to be some prior usage of "Berlin 2019" to refer to either of these two events (and/or some mention of the term "Berlin 2019" at a target article). I'm seeing neither. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 11 February 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) 02:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IPod Nano song → 1234 (Feist song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also target Bruises (Chairlift song) since that was the first result I got when I searched for this term, there is no primary topic it seems. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:46, 10 February 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 Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1024. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 → Names of large numbers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect as the target article is about the names of large numbers, rather than the number itself. B dash (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1024 which is about the number (the section title is actually 10²⁴ but superscript doesn't work in URLs) Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1024 per Thryduulf. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:19, 11 February 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 Restore draft. WP:IAR close since the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT of this page should have been he result of a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion discussion. In addition, Muhammad Hamid doesn't exist, so having the nominated title do anything other than host a draft technically does not make sense. That, and just a note, since the draft was last edited for anything draft-related in December 2017 and the next edit was redirecting the draft in June 2018, all of this just delays the WP:G13 timer to 6 months after today when it could have been tagged ((Db-g13)) back in June 2018 instead of being redirected. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Muhammad Hamid → Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded redirect of a non-notable person to a broad target [self-created page by user, incorrectly turned to a redirect]. Gotitbro (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't this have gone by WP:G13? Pinging TakuyaMurata, who turned this into a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 04:33, 10 February 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 Julia Grant (transgender activist). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Julia Grant (trans woman) → A Change of Sex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The subject, Julia Grant, has her own Wiki article, so there is no need for her name to be redirected to the article about the TV series she appeared in. Julia Grant (transgender activist) is the article with a biography of this person. Perhaps someone created that without turning the redirect into an article. Therefore, I feel that Julia Grant (trans woman) as a redirect can be deleted, as anyone looking the subject up here can simply go to the Julia Grant (transgender activist) article, which refers to A Change of Sex. TrottieTrue (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Change target to redirect to existing article. GiantSnowman 09:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target as above. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above, a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, per everyone so far. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• TrottieTrue, do you have any objections to retargeting the redirect to Julia Grant (transgender activist)? – Uanfala (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I’d probably favour deletion, but I guess it does no harm to have the other redirecting page. I probably wouldn’t have thought of the term “transgender activist” myself. – TrottieTrue (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Julia Grant (transgender activist) as above. Although the redirect was created first (4 January 2019), the activist article was drafted shortly afterwards (6 January 2019), so this should have just been boldly redirected since the activist article has been around for a month before this RFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 11 February 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Votes for Keeping → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect serves no purpose whatsoever and redirecting it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion does not make it any useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as historical: it's a remnant of the time when AfD was called "Votes for Deletion". It doesn't seem to serve a purpose any more but it doesn't do any harm either, and I rather like the idea that we might still have around the occasional little reminder of the olden days. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process to match Wikipedia:Votes for keep below. Per Uanfala deletion will not bring any benefits, and it is relevant to the history of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No incoming links, and its existence has the potential to promote the creation of useless/confusing redirects such as Wikipedia:Articles for keeping, Wikipedia:Redirects for keeping, WP:TFK, WP:FFK, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process per Thryduulf. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only stated reason for retargeting was to keep it in sync with one bizarre peripheral redirect, which has now been deleted. The current redirect, however, is an established historical remnant of the times when its target was known as "Votes for Deletion". Its only in this context that the redirect makes sense, and retargeting it anywhere else would be gratuitous. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retargeting per Uanfala's comment above. The redirect no longer serves a purpose but is harmless so I am indifferent to keeping or deleting. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uanfala. I'm now somewhat regretting closing the one discussion but not this one. Having separate outcomes for them would be really odd. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BDD: Having different outcomes is slightly odd, but it's better that we have one of two useful redirects as blue links to assist readers than both of them being redlinks. Someone looking for this title is almost certainly someone wanting information about our deletion processes - which is found and linked from Wikipedia:Deletion process. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @DannyS712: Per WP:RELIST: "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the ((relist)) template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient". Could you give a reason why you relist this discussion for the third time? --B dash (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @B dash: sorry, I didn't see that. I have amended my relisting accordingly --DannyS712 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Uanfala. --Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 10 February 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) 02:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fomor (comics) → Black Knight (Dane Whitman)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target article only mentions the topic once, and does not seem to be the place to add more information. Page was previously deleted at AFD. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to either Mordred (comics) or Avalon (Marvel Comics), which have a little more information about this group of characters. BOZ (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing and per previous AFD result which was not to create the redirect. Note that Fomorians, which Fomor redirects to, has a cartoon / comic-like illustration so it would be the subject of (comics) redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 11 February 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.