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) 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Camlann Medievel Vilage → Camlann Medieval Village  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect from a page move. Contains two typos. Nothing links here. Reyk _YO! 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article was at this title for one minute in 2006. - Eureka Lott 01:12, 3 November 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) 20:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alton Vilage, Ontario → Burlington, Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Firstly, it contains a spelling error of "Village". Second, it's unclear what "Alton" refers to. No mention of it appears in the article. Is it a mis-spelling of Halton? In that case we have two spelling errors. Reyk _YO! 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - primarily as there is no mention of it in the article. There is a neighborhood of Alton Village in Burlington but it appears to be a name assigned by developers of the homes in the area. I was unable to find any information about an Alton Village historically that was amalgamated or annexed into Burlington. -- Whpq (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as an unlikely misspelling .........PKT(alk) 19:23, 5 November 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) 20:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Goonie Tunes → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Relisting from AfD, rationale was "Goonie Tunes literally does not exist in any shape or form, rendering this redirect completely unnecessary" power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The name does not correspond to an actual film series. Dimadick (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense page created by user indefinitely blocked for vandalism only account. Captainllama (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated above, as Goonie Tunes does not exist whatsoever and is nonsensical. IceWalrus236 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 4 November 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) 20:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sceichin A Rince → Skeheenarinky  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as typo of Irish-language name "Sceichín na Rince". Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:40, 1 November 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. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DirectCash Bank → List of banks and credit unions in Canada#Schedule I banks (domestic banks)  (talk · links · history · stats)
• General Bank of Canada → List of banks and credit unions in Canada#Schedule I banks (domestic banks)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inspired by a comment I saw made by both User:Rosguill and User:Wugapodes, I'm proposing to delete this redirect as per point #10 of WP:R#DELETE. The redirect was created from a non-existent page and currently redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada. There are two problems with this, though, in that in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks, to encourage article creation and to provide reader context. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. While not a double redirect, per se, it's just not helpful. I've created a soft redirect temporarily, but, at the same time, by letting these redirects for non-existent pages stand, we may be aiding circumventing the new page creation review process in that there would be only a substantial change to an existing page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added comment Note also that point #6 of WP:R#DELETE may apply here as well since, although the target is not in a pseudo-namespace, this redirects affects the usability and navigability in a pseudo-namespace Wikipedia template for the added point cited above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the banks are not notable the redirect should be kept. Deleting redirects in favor of red links is only useful if we think the topic is already notable and no one has written the article yet. If it's not notable then we should prefer a redirect with ((R with possibilities)) so that, if it becomes notable, we know to create an article there. This is because, regardless of templates, having a redirect helps readers find the article, helps google take them to the correct page, and makes it easier to link. If there's no correct target, we may get a bunch of slightly different redlinks and wind up with two or three different articles that need merged. A soft redirect just so a template link works is an inconvenience for readers who now have to click to go to helpful content. I don't really care about AfC, and I'm definitely not going to suggest making the encyclopedia less useful just to add needless bureaucracy. If a new editor makes an article from the redirect, it gets put into the new pages feed which is enough of a check. I'd say keep both as regular redirects unless the topics are definitely notable. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, Thanks for the reply. In the former, DirectCash Bank is now an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardtronics, albeit an indirect one, so if that has an article, I'd maybe favour redirecting that there. In the case of General Bank of Canada, it doesn't get a lot of, if any, press coverage, so while it's not notable now, it could be in the future, potentially. I like that ((R with possibilities)) template better. Any way it could appear above the redirect and act as a sort of soft redirect? General Bank of Canada gets an insignificant amount of hits, so for the half dozen or dozen monthly hits it gets, it's not a significant inconvenience.

Wugapodes, ((r to list entry)) with the printworthy tag may also be a better option as well, potentially as a soft-redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: I'm very against soft redirects for pointers to content; an unnecessary click is still unnecessary. Would you mind explaining what you think the benefit to readers is? You seem sold on the idea of a soft redirect and maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic to see it. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Well, the thinking is that redlinks would encourage article creation. DirectCash Bank is potentially notable as it does have direct-to-consumer operations. General Bank of Canada just deals in the mortgage and deposit broker space, so has no realistic prospect of notability. It is an non-noteworthy bank. Arguably, these redirects, especially the latter, shouldn't have been created in the first place. I suspect they were created by an editor who direct typed their names into Wikipedia and didn't like always hitting a page saying no article exists. My preference would just be for a delete here. Any way I can arm twist you into supporting that here for point # 10? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• BDD, In absence of serious opposition, I propose just to delete them. They are extremely low used and have never been associated with a named article. As cheap as redirects are, they can just as easily be re-added.Doug Mehus (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wugapodes. The entire point of redirect is to get reader to the content they are looking for. Even a list entry can be helpful. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wugapodes and Fiamh. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wugapodes' reasoning makes perfect sense. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of Order/Procedural Objection - I wish to note that the above-cited rationale is in direct contravention to the established consensus that established point # 10 of WP:R#DELETE. The whole point of redlinks is to encourage article creation. If these are notable banks, and, at present, they do not appear to be, we want to encourage articles to be created. If they aren't notable banks, as a matter of long-standing practice, we don't normally create redirects to existing lists for non-notable banks. These redirects were likely added by a single user who likely prefers to directly type the names of banks (notable or not) into his or her web browser's address bar. If we made redirects for every non-notable organization to a list, we'd have a lot more redirects here. There is absolutely no procedural basis for keeping these non-helpful redirects, especially when you consider their extremely low use in the past 12 months (preceding this month when usage would've spiked following these pages' nomination). Doug Mehus (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason that a redirect may be nominated for a deletion. It does not say that the redirect must be deleted. In fact, the WP:R#DELETE states right at the start "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):" (emphasis added). Now skip down to the exceptions and have a look at WP:RKEEP point 7. -- Whpq (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq Thanks for your thoughtful and explanatory reply, and believe me, I did consider the reason at WP:RKEEP #7, even without having actually realized that that rationale was codified at that policy point. To me, this seems to contradict WP:RDELETE point # 10—seemingly a point of contradiction of apparently increasing commonality with respect to Wikipedia policies to the extent that consensus then becomes not about the stronger argument but the number of !votes for one policy point over the other despite this notionally being an oft-repeated WP:NOTVOTE refrain.

Alas, I digress...I guess I balanced WP:RKEEP point # 7 versus WP:RDELETE point # 10 on the premise that WP:RDELETE point # 10 would then require any potential articles to pass the new page review process, which is, arguably, a more stringent standard than the PageTriage recent changes review log process. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 7 November 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. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPAMPHIBIAN → Template:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has value for how easy it is to use and predictable. (Almost?) all WikiProjects have simple redirects like this for their banners and they are frequently replaced with the proper long form name when bots come by or when editors assess the article. This has clear utility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have more than once tried to find if a WikiProject existed and failed; only to find it later under a name I hadn't thought of. I would have found a redirect like this helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Unused" is a very weak rationale for shortcut redirects and for template redirects. Even if it weren't obviously useful (which it is, per Koavf and Narky Blert) there wouldn't be any benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wikipedia:WPAMPHIBIAN and Wikipedia:AMPHIBIAN do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 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. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPREPTILES → Template:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has value for how easy it is to use and predictable. (Almost?) all WikiProjects have simple redirects like this for their banners and they are frequently replaced with the proper long form name when bots come by or when editors assess the article. This has clear utility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have more than once tried to find if a WikiProject existed and failed, only to find it later under a name I hadn't thought of. I would have found a redirect like this helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and my comments at #Template:WPAMPHIBIAN. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wikipedia:WPREPTILES and Wikipedia:REPTILES do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 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. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Herpetology → Template:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused template redirect. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:WikiProject Herpetology targets Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, leaving the nominated redirect a plausible search term, regardless on whether or not it's "used". Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel1943. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have more than once tried to find if a WikiProject existed and failed, only to find it later under a name I hadn't thought of. I would have found a redirect like this helpful. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and my comments at #Template:WPAMPHIBIAN. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 1 November 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) 20:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Roots (Eminem album) → Eminem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Root (Eminem album) → Eminem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Success (Eminem album) → Eminem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. according to sources, they were rumored albums that turned out to be hoaxes. Delete per (a faulty) WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 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) 20:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Synthetic Worlds Ltd → JMS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Formerly a stub article, which got WP:COPYVIOed and WP:AFDed; but the AFD process wasn't completed properly, the AFD discussion was never started, and the AFD notice was deleted. Subsequently (in 2006) turned into a redirect to J. Michael Straczynski; recently bot-fixed (for no obvious reason) as a double redirect to point to JMS instead.

The article about J. Michael Straczynski does not mention Synthetic Worlds, so retargetting there would be unhelpful. The company seems to be a small publishing house, see this link, but I can find nothing significant about it. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Normally I'd be recommending reverting to the article content and doing the AfD properly, as RfD isn't a venue for deletion of encyclopaedia articles. However in this case the article would definitely be deleted - indeed it's a borderline WP:A7 speedy deletion as the only claim in the article is that it is the personal company of J. Michael Straczynski. It's not mentioned in his article and I'm not seeing any significant coverage of it elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did think of going to AFD; but in view of the state of the original article and of its unusual history, I felt it best to start from the situation as it is now rather than to resuscitate a 14 year old discussion. FWIW, Synthetic Worlds Ltd. is linked in Marjean Holden. Narky Blert (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable and there is no information about it in enwiki except for some mentions such as Babylon 5 (media franchise) which would not be a suitable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget back to J. Michael Straczynski. His works have been published under this name for many years, from the closing credits of the Babylon 5 pilot in 1993 to the copyright page of his 2019 autobiography. - Eureka Lott 17:16, 7 November 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) 20:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Heroes: Five Years Gone (film) → Five Years Gone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Heroes: Six Months Ago (film) → Six Months Ago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These appear to be just regular hour-long TV episodes so referring to them as "films" is potentially misleading. PC78 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Not harmful, and ((R from incorrect disambiguation)) applies. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misleading junk created by a hoaxer sockpuppet, no reason to keep them around. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xezbeth. Not a very active user (talk) 13:22, 4 November 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) 20:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Once Upon a Time in Ohio → Once Upon a Time in Texas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Does not appear to be an alternative title for the episode, nor does it refer to anything else on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Misleading redirect whose creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Not a very active user (talk) 13:26, 4 November 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IEEE TC → IEEE Transactions on Computers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous and non-standard redirect. Could also refer to several IEEE publications:

• IEEE Transactions on Communications
• IEEE Transactions on Computers
• IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics

This isn't an abbreviation used in the real world, so it should be deleted. Keeping it causes some headaches at WP:JCW too, so there is a heavier-than-usual maintenance cost associated with keeping it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A one minute google search finds that the nomination is incorrect - this is used in the real world and, when unqualified, it always refers to the current target, but hatnotes can be used to link to the other articles. Failing that disambiguation is the second best choice. Causing headaches for editors is never a reason to make it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 8 November 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) 20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cratez → Bonez MC discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This group (person?) only did one collaboration with Bonez MC and is mentioned only in small text on the discography page. I think this is better as a red link and should be deleted. The redirect doesn't help the reader find information on The Cratez, and may simply be confusing. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirecting one artist to another artist is hardly helpful. Better nothing than misdirection. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 5 November 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. RubyALG, feel free to contact me on my talk page for help resolving the underlying problem, but if it's about duplicate entries on Wikidata, that will have to be resolved over there. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) → Aisha (poet)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think the disambiguator is one of those WikiData codes. Recommend deleting per WP:PANDORA, I don't think using strings like this as disambiguators is helpful for readers and will just lead to a lot of useless and hard to maintain redirects. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Anything related to Wikidata identifiers should be speedyable since they mean absolutely nothing outside of Wikidata. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:PANDORA is nonsense and needs killing as quickly as possible, but this redirect is indeed not useful. I see no reason to speedy delete it though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I like the idea of speedying Wikidata disambiguators (and other similar codes). Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary and unhelpful search identifier, especially when used like this as a disambiguator. ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm also in favor of speedying (either with R3 or a new category) to save overhead here, as this type of redirect invariably gets deleted when brought to RfD. There's no reason to have this conversation over and over again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've started a discussion about the speedy deletion of this sort of redirect at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi everyone, I'm not entirely sure how things like this work - I'm still learning how to contribute properly to Wikipedia... however, I created this redirect because it was a redlink in the WiR project, however it turned out to be wrongly attributed as a redlink as the subject of the article already exists on Wikipedia with a different spelling of her name. I couldn't possibly merge the WD sources due to the fact that each instance of the same subject has separate articles on the Spanish and Basque Wikipedias, so I put in a redirect to the correct article instead. I'm not sure how else to go about the issue? I hope you take this into consideration. Thanks RubyALG (talk) 16:30, 5 November 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) 20:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MyFursona → Furry fandom#Websites and online communities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Site only existed from 2007-2011 and didn't ever seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The target page provides no information about this site, making this redirect confusing and unuseful. Not a very active user (talk) 13:30, 4 November 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) 20:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven of Gays → Havre de Grace, Maryland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've found no indication that this is a common nickname for the town. gnu57 04:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly created by a vandal account with no constructive edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vandalism per Rosguill's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 4 November 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 move to mainspace without leaving a redirect. This effectively satisfies both "move" and "delete". Since the article was already established in mainspace when the redirect was created, the redirect should not have been in draft space and will not have incoming links. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Π^2/6 → Basel problem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely a useful redirect, cross-namespace. 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move namespace to article namespace per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Preceding comment signature by IP address: 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 12#Draft:3.1415926535897932384626433832795 (closed redirect discussion). 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not relevant as that redirect was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 which is not applicable here, nor does π^2/6 exist as a redirect in mainspace already as that one did. WP:RDRAFT is however a useful page to reference. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page history that associated with the draft, are routine edit. It had no real content and not a relic of page move, so i doubt why it was created as the first place. Matthew hk (talk) 17:19, 1 November 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. Deryck C. 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would have guessed this was some sort of pop-culture reference but have found absolutely no sources for it. Am I missing something, or is this just vandalism? gnu57 03:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possibly created in error: the same editor edited Benzino several times, and also created Ray Benzino, which is at least plausible for Raymond Scott aka Benzino, and which indeed has an Urban Dictionary entry (which is the usual sort of rubbish found there). In any event: not mentioned in target, unhelpful. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 1 November 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.