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) 04:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Porn2ube → Amateur pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the redirect article and no such website or name exists, I'm assuming a website did exist in '07 (judging by this revision[1]) however the pageviews have been very low since creation, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming "porn2ube.com" was the address then back in 2007 the website redirected back to another porno website[2] (nsfw) and so I'm assuming this was created as a way to advertise the website before the p2u was redirected to another site?, It's a wild guess tho. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in the target article either now or when the redirect was created in 2007. I assume this was an actual website at one time but the redirect clearly isn't useful now. PC78 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 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 Search engine results page. MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Search results → Searching#Computing technology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Still not a good redirect, as its lemma is not included in given target (dab page!), as opposed to WP:R#PLA. Also, no backlinks in mainspace. Hildeoc (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Search engine results page, which is the most relevant article I can find on the most common meaning. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 20 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• N295ck → Payne Stewart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, the edit summary from when this was created is Payne Stewart plane registry, which I don't think is a useful redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That doesn't even look correct. Per 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash, the plane registry is (was?) N47BA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted above, it seems to be incorrect and even if it was I'm not convinced it would be useful. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It is the plane’s registry number, and it cost nothing to keep it here in case anyone searches for that unique obscure term. Tiptopper (talk)
  • @Tiptopper: Could you please provide a source to back up your claim? As mentioned above, the target article does not support this redirect and the more relevant article, 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash uses N47BA as the plane registry number. The cost of the redirect is not in question, so that is irrelevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:55, 21 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Load Bearing System → M-1956 Load-Carrying Equipment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too general of a title, could also refer to Load-bearing wall _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i'm going to edit the page to Load Bearing Equipment one, you right, the Load-Bearing System can be LB-Structural-S, LB-Personal-S, etc.

p.s. the redirect page was created to make correct references to solid pages in other languages.

Ilias48rus (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all the needed edits are done, the Load Bearing System are free to delete. Ilias48rus (talk) 18:55, 20 June 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. Withdrawing nomination per comments justifying the redirect. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Murus Mediae → Median Wall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Latin title for a Babylonian wall whose name appears to always be translated into English in English sources? Seems like a case of WP:FORRED _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I created this redirect is because I stumbled upon the term when looking at a map used somewhere in an article here on the English wikipedia (I forgot where exactly). I know Latin, but not everyone does, so someone else looking at the map might wonder about it, therefore I created a redirect. Michael! (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael! and google books results which show it is a term used occasionally, principally it seems in 19th Century works, with this meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Latin's long period of use as an international scholarly language makes me tolerant of this. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 28 June 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 Expand as discussed.. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of fasting advocates → Category:Fasting advocates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of food faddists → Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of orthopaths → Category:Orthopaths  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:REDIRECT, Redirects from list articles to categories (e.g. a redirect from [[List of things]] to [[Category:Things]] are highly discouraged. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find these useful. For example if someone is searching for a list of food faddists/pseudoscientific authors it is redirected to the category where they are all listed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. If these lists are desired, then actual lists should be created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete. The guideline is pretty clear that this is a delete situation, although I have some sentiment that this is a case of a guideline that exists for guideline's sake (something that also is common with categories), and really isn't helping our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to follow up by saying that expand is fine with me if someone wants to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand into a proper list. A list can give more context than a cateogory (date, language, etc. ) and is hence much more useful. As for following guidelines that don't seem helpful, WP:IAR. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand per DGG. The guideline in question seems clear and reasonable enough in this context, but a proper list would be the better thing per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand per DGG. I disagreed with elevating this idea to the status of guideline in part because of situations like this (and in part because there are times when redirecting to the category is actually going to be the best thing in the circumstances). We shoudln't need to IAR, but if that's what required then ignore away. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand - I am in the process of expanding these into proper lists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list of fasting advocates - I will be expanding the other two but not this one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of food faddists and list of orthopaths have both been expanded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:30, 30 June 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. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wayne Tucker → Oakland Police Department  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of Wayne Tucker at the target article. There are a few trivial passing mentions of people named Wayne Tucker in other articles, so it's probably best to let the search engine handle this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 20 June 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. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikipedia book → Wikipedia:Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Template:Wikipedia books, which seems like a more plausible and useful target both when searching and transcluding. Transcluding this redirect currently just gets you the target page's content. Geolodus (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. The current cross-namespace redirect makes no sense. PC78 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 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. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mangal Pandey metro station → Kolkata Metro Line 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No indication that this is actually an alternative name for the station at the target article or at its sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 20 June 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 List of academic ranks. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Junior professor → Professor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not included in given target. See WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Academic ranks in Germany where it's mentioned. fgnievinski (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Fgnievinski _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This rank is not exclusive to Germany. Uses on Wikipedia show American usage, mostly in the past, though that's not a reason to disfavor them. There's at least one living academic whose article mentions a junior professor position, though it's possible there's confusion there with his time as a junior fellow. It might be better to retarget to List of academic ranks. Curiously, the German rank is only mentioned in a footnote there. "Junior associate professor" is listed for Japan. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 28 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's plausible that this is an alternate name for the subject, but it's not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be mentioned in the lead of the linked Malayalam Wikipedia article, and I don't see anything in a cursory internet search that would suggest that the terms are interchangeable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttichathans are a class of demons. Karuthachan is one them. There are around 390 Kuttichathans. Their names are Vishnumaya, Parakkutty, Arukolai, Karuthachan, Mookkan, Kappiri, Kurudi, Karimkannan, etc.

The article Kuttichathan is being continuously vandalized by IP edits and recently a single purpose account User:Athuldevcr. These POV pushers want to remove all the information about other Kuttichathans except Vishnumaya because presumably they want to support the interests of sorcery businesses like this and this. Once again I have reverted the article to the original form. You are invited to check it now before getting vandalized again. Also can you take some measures to stop spamming in the page? -99v (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable enough, although it would be good to see a reliable source backing this up (in which case I would go ahead and close this discussion). As for protecting the page, it looks like no one's made any changes for about a month, so I don't think there's anything to be done right now. If vandalism persists, put in a request at WP:RPP and try to engage the other editors on the talk page. If that doesn't work, bring it to WP:ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and let the search engine do its work - Nabla (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not mentioned at the target article. Whatever the relationship between Karuthachan and Kuttichathan, the target article needs serious work. It indeed makes reference to multiple Kuttichathans, but the way the article is written now, "Vishnumaya" should really be the title. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by part of my statement above, but at least the concern regarding this redirect have been addressed. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. Karuthachan is now mentioned at the target article after this edit by MrOllie. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 20 June 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 Boys (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Boys (film) → Boy (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect to a DAB page with no full title matches. There is a film called The Boys (apparently only the one) - IMDb entry - on which we have no article. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Retarget per PC78. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Boys (disambiguation). There are several articles for films with this title. PC78 (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per PC78 and add ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). Geolodus (talk) 07:30, 25 June 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, nominator withdrawal and unanimous support for keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article should be deleted because there should be macrons on either no letters or both o's in Tokyo. We already have a redirect for the proper macron spelling Tōkyō. Tōkyo is inaccurate! Hkbusfan (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R from mispelling)). Narky Blert (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. It's a simple misspelling. Nom should withdraw because he/she has missed the point. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can withdraw. I completely missed the point. I understand this better now. Hkbusfan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 21 June 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.