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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selecta (Infected Mushroom song) → Infected Mushroom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed in the band's Discography. It's not a song on any of their albums (at least those with articles) either. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a song from this album, which has no article. Most likely, I created it because it was a redlink at Selecta. If deleted, consider moving Selecta (Afrojack song) to Selecta (song). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the song was not released as a single, and the album it was from does not have an article, and the target article does not so much as mention it, then I'm not sure what purpose the redirect serves. It probably shouldn't be listed on the dab page either. PC78 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Doors Remixed → Infected Mushroom#Discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed in the band's Discography. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Doors have nothing to do with them. Too broad of a title. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems to be a Various artists compilation [1] in which the first four tracks are covers that Infected Mushroom had done, but it is not an official release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 16 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinaville → Plano, Texas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no sources for this supposed alternative name for Plano, TX. The reason given by the creator of the redirect page, that Plano has a sizable "Asian" population, indicates nothing about the city having a Chinese quality. Moreover, there are no verifiable sources given for this nickname. It seems to fall under the category of things "made up one day." Songi360 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The primary topic for "Chinaville" is a restaurant in Lagos. After that comes a business (maybe a hotel) in Oakland, California and after that mentions of what I think are businesses in Brooklyn and Indiana. [2] is a newspaper advert from 1840 that implies there is a place called Chinaville in Louisiana about 10 miles from "Appalouses Parish" (probably Opelousas, Louisiana) but I can't find any other mention of it. The Nigerian restaurant may be notable (I haven't looked in detail), but none of the others are. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Searches result in the same non-notable local businesses, and a Gunsmiths book by J.R. Roberts (Robert J. Randisi) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 16 March 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. After 2 relistings, consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hallucinogenic effects of banana peels → Bananadine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Considering that the current target is a fictional substance and the article Banana peel does not seem to contain the information referenced in the redirect, possibly the best course of action for this redirect is "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of the article is exactly about this topic so that will be exactly what someone using this is looking for. The article clearly states it is fictional so there is no risk of misinformation or misleading anybody. I don't understand why this has even been nominated - it fulfils exactly the purpose of a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The target is about a specific hoax, not about the hallucinogenic effects of banana peels in general. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite searching I have not been able to find anything related to the hallucinogenic effects of banana peel that wasn't related to this hoax (banana peel has no hallucinogenic effects). Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf: the redirect accurately describes the topic of the article. For a redirect to make sense, it doesn't matter if its target article is about a real or a fictional entity. – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally keep - this is a dopey request, what are you smoking? There's a widespread notable concept of the hallucinogenic effects of banana peels, whether the actual effect is a hoax or urban legend, or not. Wikipedia's article on the subject, containing all the relevant information, happens to be titled "Bananadine". It is (quite rightly) split off from the main banana peel article as it's too long to be incorporated in it. It could reasonably be titled "smoking banana peels", "hallucinogenic effects of banana peels", or similar phrases. Any such likely search terms could and should be redirected to the article. One might argue that the given search term is improbable, but not that it should be deleted because it redirects to an article about a hoax. People may be bummed to find out they won't get high, but find out they should. --IamNotU (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just added Banana peel § Psychoactive effects of banana peels if people would prefer to link to that, but I still think the redirect to the main article is the correct target. --IamNotU (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known urban legend, well-covered in the target article. Narky Blert (talk) 13:26, 11 March 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.