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) B dash (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ＃hashtag articles → Wikipedia:＃hashtag articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misguided good faith attempt to provide users with help by adding some sort of help page to article space. Difficult to see when this would ever be of use, and in any event articlespace is not the place for such help. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator); this is similar to other cross-namespace redirects from the article space to the project or help space, such as Help page or Spezial:Beobachtungsliste. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Cross-namespace redirects, and per nom. I fail to this as being used. SSSB (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Type # into the search bar: there it is, second from the top. That is the most likely thing a WP user is going to do looking for a hashtag article on Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per UnitedStatesian. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Helpful explanation at the target page, but I agree with second part of the nom. The page should ideally be in Help: namespace. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:42, 6 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. If anyone is able to flesh out an article on closure conversion, that would probably be the best solution. Until then, I'll trade in the ((R from alternative name)) for ((R with possibilities)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closure conversion → Lambda lifting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From the target page: “Lambda lifting is not the same as closure conversion.” Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet there's information at the target page about closure conversions and how they compare with lambda lifting. How likely is it that we'd have or want a separate article on closure conversion anytime soon? --BDD (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is mentioned at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:54, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Streams of Alabama → Category:Rivers of Alabama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Category:Streams of Denmark → Category:Rivers of Denmark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These were created as category redirects after a CFD resulted in all "Streams of X" categories being merged into "Rivers of X" categories and deleted. We used to have a good number of "Streams of X" categories, but these are now the only two. Why do they need redirects when the others don't? There are a good number of "Rivers of X" categories, so having exactly two "streams" is slightly confusing: if you find one or both of these, you might reasonably expect that they'll exist for other places as well, but they won't, and if you're not paying attention, you might put an article into a redlinked category. Better to delete these two than to have a small number of "streams" redirects or to create a ton of additional "streams" categories. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. delete - Nabla (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No mention of this character. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There sure are a lot of Dragon Ball character redirects that are misspelled or have broken targets. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:49, 5 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) 22:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gulp Worm → List of Resident Evil characters#Creatures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of it in Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:18, 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 delete. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Montana Mendy → Montana Mendy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has no business being in project space. The author (who is the article's subject) moved it from draft to project space to main space. Largoplazo (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Largoplazo, next time you see something like this, you can put a speedy tag on it. See WP:SPEEDY for the criteria, e.g. WP:R2. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:43, 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 Goldilocks principle. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Goldilocks pricing → Pricing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of Goldilocks or plausibly related phrases (e.g. just right, not too high) at Pricing. Created as a redirect in 2006, with no other edit history. Cnilep (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the time there was discussion of the term in the article. [1].~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was removed in this 2010 edit by an IP, presumably because it was unsourced.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Goldilocks principle where it is mentioned, the link in that section will then need removing as it will become circular though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Goldilocks principle per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget seems like the most reasonable outcome. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget sounds appropriate, perhaps with a ((R with possibilities)) (though, given that it is unsourced at Goldilocks principle, perhaps not). Cnilep (talk) 04:14, 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.