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) 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rita Ellis → Murder of Rita Ellis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion as I created an article for Rita Ellis the politican. I will set up a disambiguation page if requested. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending of course on how notable her murder is considered these days, I think it's better to move this redirect to Rita Ellis (murder victim). The politician article could then be moved into its place, and a disambiguation page created pointing to both the politician and the article on the murder. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but add a hatnote to the politician at the target. The murder victim is the clear primary topic, filling 14 of the first 20 results in my search for "Rita Ellis" -wikipedia, the politician does not appear in the first 30 results (the other results principally being obituaries for non-notable people). Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with hatnote at target per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hatnote to Rita Ellis murder and will add hatnote to Rita Ellis (politician). Thank you for guidance. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 12:40, 25 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 Procedural close, no longer redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Puerto Rico Highway 131 → Ruta Panorámica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Puerto Rico Highway 760 → Ruta Panorámica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Puerto Rico Highway 722 → Ruta Panorámica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, it's unclear to me if there even is a PR-722, although there is a PR-7722 mentioned int he article. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find evidence of this highway's existence and an appropriate redirect target although there are unsourced mentions in List of highways in Puerto Rico. I would suggest redirecting to there instead, unless someone can provide a reliable source confirming that they are part of the Ruta Panorámica. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I took the liberty of removing the redirection to the Ruta Panorámica of the three roads to create a stub article to each one of them. I don't know if I did the right thing, but I think the articles have the necessary references to keep them. Yamil Rivera (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yarfpr: that's perfectly fine. As they're no longer redirects this discussion will be procedurally closed, but this is without prejudice to prod or AfD if anyone disagrees with the notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Paleyagar of Gummanayakana Palya → Nayak dynasty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is a disambiguation page, and "Paleyagar of Gummanayakana Palya" is not mentioned there (nor is any substring thereof). It's possible there's a valid redirect target, but being unfamiliar with the subject I don't know what it would be, so I would recommend deletion unless someone can find a compelling target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, at least for now. There used to be a mention of them in this recently expanded version of Polygar, but I've now removed that as unsourced. A more likely target would be Draft:Gummanayakana Palya, when it's accepted and moved to main, provided it still has the content about the Palyegars (if it were up to me, I would allow this content in mainspace only if I've checked it in detail against the source). – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:DABABBREVIATIONS → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• MOS:DABABBREVIATION → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Never been used and an unhelpful shortcut. Both are not even mentioned at the current target. At the very least the plural form is not needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Use or not, they make sense. Unless there is a proposed alternative target for these, I am not seeing what this nomination is intending to fix. Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, here's the rest of the redirects that currently target Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations:

  MOS:DABABBR

  MOS:DABABBREV

  MOS:DABABRV

  MOS:DABACRO

  MOS:DABACRONYM

  MOS:DABINITIAL

  MOS:DABINITIALISM

  MOS:DABINITIALISMS

  MOS:DABINITIALS

  Wikipedia:DABACRO

  ...Note the existence of MOS:DABACRONYM,, MOS:DABINITIALISM, and MOS:DABINITIALISMS ... which also contain full words of what they represent in their names. In fact, now that I see this list, I now see a helpful need for MOS:DABACRONYMS, so I will be creating that shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's true they're almost never used, but absent any other possible target, they don't hurt anything. Station1 (talk) 19:24, 22 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 withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Funk Da World → Project Funk da World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Funk da World → Project Funk da World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure why this was created but this is a unlikely search term as the article does not have Wikipedia in its title Abote2 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Project:" is a hard-coded alias for "Wikipedia:" so this redirect is also Project:Funk Da World (just as Wikipedia:Example and Project:Example are exactly the same page), which is the correct title of the target page. This redirect therefore exists for technical reasons, as already noted with the redirect tags. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A brief review of the page history would show that at least one was created from a page move. The article was originally created in the "Wikipedia:" space for the reasons that Thryduulf gives, and I moved it to article space, not grasping at the time the entire problem that has since been fixed and well documented.  ★  Bigr Tex 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. These titles point where they do for technical reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I now understand why it was created so this can be done with and closed Abote2 (talk) 23:46, 22 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) Invalid^OS (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Star dodecagon → Dodecagram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, and an internet search would suggest that these are not quite the same thing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They're the same thing. See Regular_polygon#Regular_star_polygons--they're both names for shapes with Shlaefli symbol {12/5}. Oeoi (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit I don't know what "degenerate" means in this context, but that section suggests a difference between a degenerate star dodecagon and a non-degenerate dodecagram (also a star). I assume I'm missing something... --BDD (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a decently useful redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oeoi's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:30, 23 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eonsan-dong serial killer → Abyss (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Eomsan-dong serial killer → Abyss (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this at the target; a quick google search returns nothing; suggest deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken the liberty of combining these two as I don't think there's any point in discussing them separately. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I thought about trying to do that, but I didn't want to break something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. I believe these are a reference to a named character, the show's antagonist Oh Yeong-cheol, but they don't look remotely useful to me. I'm guessing Eomsan-dong is a fictional location (at least, it's not listed at List of districts of Seoul and I can't find anything online) so you would have to be extremely familiar with the show already just to understand the reference. Even then, I don't think that the show's characters are of any particular significance. PC78 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PC78. It serves no reader to have such an obscure puzzle put together into a redirect. bd2412 T 21:12, 2 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Glock 7 → List of fictional firearms#G  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GLOCK 7 → Glock Ges.m.b.H.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not explained or mentioned at the target article. The "Glock 7" is also not discussed in the Die Hard 2 article, which covers the only work this fictional firearm appears in. Without a good target, this should just be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added GLOCK 7 to this discussion as whatever happens they should not point to different targets. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These redirects have had many different targets over the time they've been around, as discussion about the fictional weapon has come and gone from various places, there has also been an article on at least two occasions [1][2] (most comprehensive deleted revision). I've not been able to find anywhere that currently mentions the weapon, but search engine results are not very helpful here as most are instances of Timo Glock finishing in 7th place. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both redirects point to articles which contain no mention of "Glock 7", and neither have any incoming links from main. --kingboyk (talk) 20:05, 2 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.