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) 19:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Harriet Kemsley → Bobby Mair  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTINHERITED. May well pass muster on her own merits, so if nothing else the redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation. Launchballer 20:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close This has turned into an actual article about Kemsley, who looks to have enough notability in mainstream news. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 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) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Green Goblin (set index) → Green Goblin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Presumably the target was a set index in the past, but now it is a proper article. Even if it still was I don't think this is an acceptable disambiguator. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, the disambiguator is an artifact of Wikipedia, not part of a proper title, and of course no longer relevant in this case. PC78 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 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) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gorc → Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another Star Wars character (?) that isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Searches show non-notable organizations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:45, 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) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The R3-30 number-one hits of 2006 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2006 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of the R3-30 number-one hits of 2006 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The R3-30 number-one hits of 2007 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2007 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of the R3-30 number-one hits of 2007 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The R3-30 number-one hits of 2008 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2008 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of the R3-30 number-one hits of 2008 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The R3-30 number-one hits of 2009 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2009 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of the R3-30 number-one hits of 2009 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The R3-30 number-one hits of 2010 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2010 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of the R3-30 number-one hits of 2010 → CBC Radio 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirects that are no longer serving any useful purpose. Once upon a time, these actually did represent standalone lists of the #1 hits on the network's weekly chart show -- but after WP:NMUSIC was tightened up to deprecate single-network proprietary charts as no longer notability-makers, they were summarily redirected to the network's article. However, since the network's article does not retain a merged list of its past #1 songs, a person who finds or searches any of these titles is not actually going to find any such list -- so there's no point in retaining redirects that aren't actually pointing to the type of content suggested by the titles. By comparison, the other two lists which also used to exist for 2011 and 2012 have simply been deleted rather than surviving as redirects. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart leftovers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Target article does not contain any of the information someone who clicks on or searches these titles would be looking for.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Did you know nominations → Template talk:Did you know  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose disambiguating this page based on this edit, which was reverted by Drmies.

When this redirect was initially created, all WP:DYK nominations were listed on Template talk:Did you know, regardless of whether they were approved or not. Approved nominations have been split into a separate page, Template talk:Did you know/Approved, since December 2016. A user wanting to access approved nominations needs to wait for the current target to finish loading, then press on the link to proceed to the approved nominations page. Because of the huge number of subpages involved, loading either page requires a lot of time and consumes data, which means it's both inefficient and inconvenient to point all editors to Template talk:Did you know. Instead, we should provide editors with a choice between the two pages. feminist (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That choice will be very, very difficult for new editors, who are among the target audience of DYK. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can add an explanatory element to the disambiguation page, e.g. telling new editors to go to the first link if they want to nominate an article for DYK. feminist (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This was the change reverted by Drmies. Adding here for context, since I wasn't myself sure what the exact proposed change would look like. Spokoyni (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw nothing wrong with the previous link to WP:DYKN. This should have been discussed at WT:DYK before a disambiguation was made. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was merely following the WP:BRD process. My change was reverted, so I am bringing it here for discussion. A notification for this discussion exists on WT:DYK. feminist (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't know what the intent was, but it has made a real mess now as it to the actual redirect rather than the nominations page. I'd say put it back to what it was and leave it alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per The C of E. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Only creates a mess in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nobody is going to type "Template:Did you know nominations" to find the DYK nominations. They will follow the links in the navbox transcluded on to all the DYK central project pages, or else use the established shortcuts if they know them. Obviously, the redirects have to follow what it says on the DYK project pages, anything else is unhelpful misdirection for users. Wikipedia talk:Did you know is the correct place to discuss changes to project navigation. SpinningSpark 23:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: most editors access this page from individual DYK nominations. This page gets a lot of usage as evidenced by its page views. People want to get back to DYK nominations, but under the current setup cannot choose between those that are pending approval, and those that are approved. feminist (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not interested in going to approved nominations. The link is used when creating a nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and return to status quo ante. As Hawkeye7 says, the purpose of this link is for returning to the nomination page when making a nomination. It is not useful to do something different with it, and the DYK project should have been included in discussions about this before making any change of this nature. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:AINTBROKE. The page is just a placeholder and nobody looks it up - moving will only create issues with replacing existing links to the page (which is, probably quite a lot) without any benefits for editors or the wiki. Juxlos (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone close this? It's really irritating. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 8 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 no consensus. But this page can be converted to a DAB page per discussion (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think I've seen redirects-in-quotation-marks discussed before in RFD, and deleted. I came across this one as an ambiguous link to a song, which I replaced by a link to "[[John (Someone's song)|John]]" to one or other of the entries on the DAB page. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If "Heroes" (David Bowie album) is an acceptable title, "John" is acceptable for John (Lil Wayne song), a redirect to it, or a disambiguation page that includes it. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I take the point about the Lil Wayne song stylisation, but whereas ITunes and Amazon both do use quotation marks for the David Bowie album, they both don't for the Lil Wayne song. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at disambiguation, since it could refer to the song stylized with the quotes or any other John songs in general. The single cover has the stylized quotes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 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) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• World Martial Arts Tournament Announcer (Dragon Ball) → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tenkaichi Budokai Announcer → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tenkaichi Budokai Announcer (Dragon Ball) → List of Dragon Ball characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This character doesn't appear to be covered on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He is a recurring character in the series, but seems to be off the main list for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 2 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) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tedn → Mos Eisley  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tedn Dahai → Mos Eisley  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A minor Star Wars character whose only mention is at List of Star Wars cast members, which wouldn't be a useful redirect target. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, redirecting to cast members is not useful. Also would be confusing with TEDx and other TED talk variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 2 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarrance And Phhilp → List of recurring South Park characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too many errors to be of any value. The last misspelling in particular is just silly. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: typo redirects like this are unnecessary due to the search function; I see little reason to keep them. Geolodus (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as WP:RTYPO two or more errors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, not a useful redirect. PC78 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was originally created as a badly spelled article, whose entire text consisted of "South Park characters", and got redirected to the location of our already-existing content about Terence and Philip accordingly. But yes, it's an implausible misspelling that there's no reason to maintain. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 2 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 disambiguate my moving Home garden (disambiguation) to the base title and redirecting Home gardens there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Home garden → Back garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Home gardens → Forest garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It has been pointed out on WP:Help desk#Making a new page that Home garden and Home gardens are redirects to different targets. I see no reason for either of these two to redirect to any one of the four options on Home garden (disambiguation). It would seem better to move the existing disambig page to Home garden, and redirect Home gardens to that. Further, on the disambig page "forest garden" should be distinguished from the others, as a forest garden doesn't have to be next to anyone's house : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no further explanation needed. Dhio-270599 12:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Home garden (disambiguation) over redirect as suggested by nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:49, 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 retarget to Eurogamer#Subsidiaries. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Push Square → Eurogamer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. (Subject seems to be a part of Gamer Network however.) Geolodus (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid search term. It should go to Gamer Network but as that article doesn't exist, Eurogamer has to do. I've added a short description. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree; the redirect seems keepable now that it's actually mentioned in the article. A non-primary source for that mention would be preferable though. Geolodus (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine to Eurogamer#Subsidiaries as Push Square is part of the Gamer Network which redirects to Eurogamer. Perhaps Gamer Network can have its own article since it encompasses more than just Eurogamer now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: an anon recently created an article on this title prematurely. I reverted it as lacking consensus and explained further on their talk page. Geolodus (talk) 17:44, 4 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 retarget to Pistoleer#India pattern pistol. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lucknow pistol → Pistoleer#British horse pistol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target doesn't actually mention "Lucknow pistol", the term appears to be original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should redirect to the Indian pattern pistol made at Lucknow and other British controlled arsenals in India. 53zodiac (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget (to the alternate section) per 53zodiac. - Paul^T+/_C 13:32, 8 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 retarget to Joint venture. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bad redirect – term only linked, but not explained in target. Hence, this should be reddened so that potential editors can see that a pertinent article is currently missing. Hildeoc (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect could cause confusion because of other uses of "joint venture". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Joint venture. The redirect gets lots of hits (415 last year) and there are multiple such ventures that are or were styled in camelcase, so it is very clearly a useful search term. However, the current target is not useful for almost all of these. If there are only a small number of notable joint ventures then a list of them could be added to the main article or Joint venture (disambiguation); if there are more a separate list article linked from both would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf's reasoning. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to joint venture. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:09, 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 keep. Any editor is free to convert this redirect into a standalone article for the Honor 9 Lite. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Honor 9 Lite → Honor 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am new at this... The Honor 9 Lite page heretofore was a simple redirect to the Honor 9 page, which is a gross neglect of the actual phones being lumped together. The Honor 9 and 9 Lite share a name and little else, giving disregard to the substantive differences. A simple redirect is just painting with too broad a stroke. Why not just redirect all phones to Digital Devices?

I suggest the 9 Lite warrants it's own page. At a minimum, there should be content qualifying and quantifying the unique qualities of the 9 Lite. If you must mention it's marketing sibling, offer an intelligently described link to the 9 after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.62.74 (talk)

• Comment Are you saying the Honor 9 Lite isn't really a derivative of the Honor 9, but is a very different product, similarly to how Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express are very different products? If that's so, I would agree that the redirect doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, if the Honor 9 Lite is a derivative, it might be an appropriate redirect. The trouble is that the Huawei Honor 9 page doesn't mention the Lite at the moment. As such, I can see three options:
  • Keep the redirect, and add a description of the Lite to the Huawei Honor 9 article
  • Change the redirect to a separate article
  • Delete the redirect

— Smjg (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as with Huawei Mate 10 Lite redirecting to Huawei Mate 10. It needs to be explained what it is. If it's a major difference, then you can spin out the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AngusWOOF's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:08, 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 retarget to Bir Tawil#Claims. Closing early per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingdom of North Sudan → List of micronations#Kingdom of North Sudan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As per User:MrHumanPersonGuy, this redirects to a nonexistent target that isn't likely to come back. Slashme (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a word about the entity in the target article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for a redirect to something that has no mention. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bir Tawil#Claims, where the term is used and explained. This was also where the title was originally redirected to in 2016. MarkZusab (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bir Tawil#Claims where it is mentioned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per MarkZusab. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appear to be a couple of kingdoms of North Sudan historically [1], therefore it may be worth keeping whichever the target may be, so that it can be expanded later. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bir Tawil where it is discussed in detail [2] [3], and add redirects here hatnote to North Sudan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bir Tawil#Claims per above and add a hatnote along the lines of ((redirect|North Sudan|the micronation|Bir Tawil#Claims((!))Bir Tawil §Claims)) to Sudan per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 300-metre tower → Eiffel Tower  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in the target article. Further, three towers are on the List of tallest towers with an exact height of 300 meters, thus making it difficult for this to redirect to any one of them. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is easily sourceable that the Eiffel Tower was referred to as the "300 metre tower" in the conceptual stages before it acquired the name of its architect. It should also be noted that the Eiffel Tower predates any other 300-metre tower, as building something 300 meters high was thought impossible before the Eiffel Tower's completion. And if you believe that the phrase "300 meter tower" is ambiguous, then this should be turned into a disambiguation page, not deleted. pbp 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: If it's easily sourceable perhaps you could edit the article. If you were to do that I'd !vote keep with an explanatory ((redirect|300-metre tower|other towers|List of tallest towers)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are many other towers that are also 300 meters Abote2 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but add the hatnote per PuprbleBackPack and Shhnotsoloud. No cause for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's hard to think of many landmarks that are as well-known as the Eiffel Tower so I can't believe that this redirect is useful to anyone. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Its useful if somone is reading a document made before the naming, such as those described by purplebackpack. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep with the ((redirect|300-metre tower|other towers|List of tallest towers)) hatnote at Eiffel Tower as above. - Paul^T+/_C 22:17, 7 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy Blunder → Robin (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a genuine nickname. A quick search reveals the term is used for various different things, including a racehorse, but usually not this character. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a term used is the by the Joker, I believe. It's a satire on "boy wonder". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Also used in Five Riddles for Robin by Michael Dahl. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Possible precedent in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Batsy. I'm leaning delete since we don't discuss the nickname (and I'd say the same for "Batsy"). If I could imagine a reader who would say, "Now, who was it that was referred to as the 'Boy Blunder' again?" I suppose ((R from non-neutral name)) would apply. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an ((R from non-neutral name)). Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's mentioned as a parody name in Birdman and Chicken. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rich Farmbrough and Rubbish computer. It seems to have multiple references (three listed above) in various mediums and is a plausible search term for the "boy wonder". - Paul^T+/_C 22:15, 7 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.