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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Carlyn → Pop Girls  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A mononym for the name of one of the members of the band, there appear to be at least a few biographies of people with the name on Wikipedia (Carlyn Chisholm, Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, Carlyn Kruger. I would suggest either disambiguation, or redirecting to Caroline (as well as the addition of Carlyns to that article) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as there is no primary topic. Another option is to redirect ot Carlin (name) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per both of the above. Thanks to AngusWOOF for creating the draft page. - Eureka Lott 05:05, 1 October 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 Philosophy in Coptic over the redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Coptic philosophy → Alexandrian school  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither "Copt", nor "orthodox" (as in Oriental Orthodox, the group of churches that Coptic Christianity belongs to) are mentioned in the target, which leads me to believe that this is an error. I would suggest either deletion or redirecting to Copts or Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Coptic disambiguation. They're probably looking for Copts, but in case they are looking for the other churches that have the word Coptic in it, then this gives the reader options. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Coptic Church points to Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and that target already has a hat note to the other Coptic church--I'd argue that it's a clear primary topic (and especially for the philosophy redirect in particular, as presumably the Coptic Catholic Church's philosophy is roughly the same as the rest of the Catholic church). Coptic Christianity points to Copts, but honestly I think that's a worse target, redirecting from a clear search for a religious institution to an ethnic group feels weird. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill and AngusWOOF: I have created Philosophy in Coptic as a better redirect target. We could perhaps move that article to this namespace (swap titles). To me, "Coptic philosophy", if it suggests anything at all, suggests either a distinct tradition/school of philosophy among Copts or else just the literary tradition of philosophy written in the Coptic language. Best I can tell, the former does not exist and the latter just barely—but the Coptic Encyclopedia has an article on it. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this new article should be swapped with the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 6 October 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 Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Case Farms → West Simsbury, Connecticut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, most ghits appear to be for a North Carolina poultry company that is almost certainly notable per [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that Case Farms is notable; an Internet search shows rather little in-depth coverage of the company besides the subject's website and the article linked by the nominator. For that reason, I currently oppose converting this redirect to an article, but am otherwise neutral. Geolodus (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification on lack of coverage: besides the New Yorker article, there's one from ProPublica that a few other sources wrote off of, but that's about it. To add, the New Yorker wrote their article in collaboration with ProPublica (see [2]). Two or three reliable sources is not enough for an independent Wikipedia article. Geolodus (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio per AngusWOOF's comment below. Seems plausible. Geolodus (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm also seeing some Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 26 September 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) 20:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Holophoner Award → Template:WikiProject Futurama Holo Award  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect of a barnstar(?) Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leftover from a page move in 2007. How do you know it isn't being used? Seems pretty harmless. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unused (no incoming links and 5 pageviews last year) template-space redirect from a misspelling (Holophoner versus Holophonor). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:47, 29 September 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 Template:Cm. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CM → Template:Citation needed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Potentially confusing, especially when Template:Cm exists. I understand that this exists to prevent typos when typing "cn", but it would make more sense for this to redirect to Template:Cm. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Cm --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nominator. Simply seems more logical than having a typo as the primary redirect. Geolodus (talk) 19:48, 25 September 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) 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. 'Python' is a word of Greek origin; I can see no need for a redirect with an Icelandic thorn in the middle of it. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The thorn is commonly transliterated as th (as in thinking), but someone with enough linguistic knowledge to know that would certainly also know that Python is not a name of Germanic origin and thus not spell it with the thorn. Weak delete. Geolodus (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; not used and not likely to be used. ComplexRational (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's not doing anything harmful by being there. It's where you would expect to go if you typed "python" with a thorn. I don't think my reasoning is too strong, but it's something. Invalid^OS (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also where you'd expect 'Pyθon' to point, but we don't have ðat. Narky Blert (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily delete per nom. English did not borrow such words until 1066. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a made-up neologism that is unused (no incoming links, virtually no pageviews before this nomination) and contains no useful page history. CSD R3 could apply, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• R3 does not apply to redirects that were created 9 months ago. Geolodus (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that established consensus? If so, where/when was that decided? As of now (i.e., pending your response), I would comfortably apply R3 to any redirect less than 1 year old. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it is (and R3 is a rather subjective criterion anyway), but wouldn't call 6+ months ago recent. Plenty of external links could have been made in that time. Geolodus (talk) 05:42, 1 October 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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mocirlele River (Sugag) → Șugag River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Mocirlele River (Şugag) → Șugag River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mocirlele River (Șugag) → Șugag River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Mocirlele River (Șugag), and retarget Mocirlele River (Sugag) and Mocirlele River (Şugag) there. If the subject of Mocirlele River (Șugag) (a ((R with history))) is a WP:HOAX, that can be determined via WP:AFD rather than a WP:BOLD WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT targeting an article where this subject is not mentioned. If it is deleted, then the others can be deleted per WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 3 km long, and flows into the small river Șugag south of the village Dobra. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). I added this stream as a tributary to the infobox of the Șugag River article, so at least the redirect is less surprising now. Markussep ^Talk 10:35, 13 September 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 restore and retarget. Notability concerns may be handled at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Moraru River (Plostina) → Cracăul Alb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Moraru River (Ploştina) → Cracăul Alb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Moraru River (Ploștina) → Cracăul Alb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Moraru River (Ploștina), and retarget Moraru River (Plostina) and Moraru River (Ploştina) there. If the subject of Moraru River (Ploștina) (a ((R with history))) is a WP:HOAX, that can be determined via WP:AFD rather than a WP:BOLD WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT targeting an article where this subject is not mentioned. If it is deleted, then the others can be deleted per WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map (as "Morarul"): it is about 1.5 km long, and flows into the small stream Ploștina (a tributary of the Cracăul Alb) south of the village Mitocu Bălan. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep ^Talk 09:27, 13 September 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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Moara Dracului River (Hogea) → Moldova (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Moara Dracului River (Valea Caselor) → Moldova (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article formerly at this title was moved to Moara Dracului River (Valea Caselor) in 2009. User:Markussep WP:BLARed it in July 2019, with an edit summary of not sure this river exists. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Moara Dracului River (Valea Caselor), and retarget Moara Dracului River (Hogea) there. If the subject of Moara Dracului River (Valea Caselor) (a ((R with history))) is a WP:HOAX, that can be determined via WP:AFD rather than a WP:BOLD WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT targeting an article where this subject is not mentioned. If it is deleted, then the other can be deleted per WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As a river the Moara Dracului is not notable, but I found there is a small natural monument or nature reserve which covers the Moara Dracului gorge. There is a map on this website, see "TRASEUL 6". I'm not sure whether it's notable though. Markussep ^Talk 09:48, 13 September 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 restore and retarget. Notability concerns may be handled at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Moara Dracului River (Falcau) → Calul (Bistrița)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Moara Dracului River (Falcău) → Calul (Bistrița)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Moara Dracului River (Falcău), and retarget Moara Dracului River (Falcau) there. If the subject of Moara Dracului River (Falcău) (a ((R with history))) is a WP:HOAX, that can be determined via WP:AFD rather than a WP:BOLD WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT targeting an article where this subject is not mentioned. If it is deleted, then the other can be deleted per WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 2 km long, and flows into the small stream Falcău (a tributary of the Calul) west of the village Poieni. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep ^Talk 09:27, 13 September 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 restore/retarget per Steel1943, with the exception of Paraul Varului which will be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pârâul Varului. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Paraul Varului → Tecșe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Pârâul Mărului (Turia) → Turia (Cașin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Paraul Crucii → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Paraul Crucii (Braia) → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Paraul Crucii, Braia → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Pârâul Crucii → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Pârâul Crucii (Braia) → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Pârâul Crucii, Braia → Braia (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Paraul Marului (Turia) → Turia (Cașin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More unexplained redirects concerning Romanian rivers. There is no indication in the target articles why these redirects target those pages. Note that Pârâul Mărului also exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Paraul Marului (Turia) to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Bunch of responses:
  1. Retarget Paraul Varului to Pârâul Varului;
  2. Restore Pârâul Mărului (Turia) and retarget Paraul Marului (Turia) there;
  3. Restore Pârâul Crucii (Braia) and retarget Paraul Crucii (Braia) and Pârâul Crucii, Braia there;
  4. Restore Pârâul_Crucii and retarget Paraul Crucii there;

...Afterwards, and articles that are restored can be nominated for WP:AFD if need be, and then the redirects would follow suit and be deleted per WP:G8. The way it stands though, a lot of these redirects are ((R with history))s or ((R from merge))s and were WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed in a way that made them troublesome redirects since they are not mentioned at their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My combined responses:
  1. Pârâul Varului is the subject of this AfD (update 23 Sept) and has been deleted. Since "Paraul Varului" is the same without diacritics, it makes sense to delete this redirect as well. Markussep ^Talk 07:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pârâul Crucii is mentioned in the infobox of the target article Braia (river) as a right tributary, so these 6 redirects can be kept IMO.
  3. Keep redirect Pârâul Mărului (Turia) and Paraul Marului (Turia): I found this small stream on this detailed hiking map, southeast of the village Băile Balvanyos. I added Pârâul Mărului to the list of tributaries in the Turia (Cașin) article. Markussep ^Talk 13:56, 13 September 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 Template:Cyclones. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cyclone → Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Cyclones. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 1 October 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) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Catbox WPMusInst → Template:WikiProject Musical Instruments  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 29 September 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) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Biathlon → Template:WikiProject Biathlon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:01, 29 September 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) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Beverage → Template:WikiProject Food and drink  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as an unused (virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. The redirect does have a lot of incoming links right now, but it appears they are generated by this nomination, because old versions of the WikiProject's newsletters transclude the current version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 29 September 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) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wpchr → Template:WikiProject Christianity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused. No evidence that was ever used en masse Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 29 September 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) 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Magical beast (Dungeons & Dragons) → Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably worth waiting to see how the deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters and similar pages go. If they wind up being kept (unlikely) this should be kept as a good search term, and if those pages get deleted (likely) then this redirect and its target are probably short lived. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:59, 25 September 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:FORRED, Polish is not a relevant language to Yugoslavia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator is correct, WP:FORRED applies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HA! some people may not know that there is a polish wikipedia and so look up jugoslawia here. Barracuda41 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is explicitly addressed by the content of WP:FORRED, which you should read. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As others have pointed out WP:FORRED is pretty clear here. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED. (The usual Roman script version beginning 'J' was Jugoslavija, which is a useful redirect to Yugoslavia; see Postage stamps and postal history of Yugoslavia for examples.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:19, 25 September 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 by restoring the page as it stood before redirection. It will need disambiguation cleanup, however. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tree crop → Forestry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. "Tree crop" is not mentioned in the article and is a potentially ambiguous term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redirect is quite reasonable. For example, here's an example of usage: Tree Crop Physiology. Andrew D. (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It's not clear to me that that publication is about forestry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Disambiguate Forestry is strongly associated with managing trees for timber production. Tree crop is a term usually associated with trees managed for uses other than timber production (edible fruits, rubber, etc.). Orchard is more relevant to the concept of tree crops than forestry, but is not the only article on Wikipedia associated with tree crops (Plantation is another). Tree crop was a disambiguation page from 2010 until 2019. Plantdrew (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC) (edit) I suggested deletion as possibility because I believe an article could be written on tree crops. Plantdrew (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore disambiguation from 2010. Entries can be scrutinized if they have the variants of "tree crop" in them. That would then be good enough to retain. For example, Tree farm has the term "forest crop" Plantation has "forest plantation" and "tree plantation". Forestry article doesn't have "crop" listed anywhere. Agroforestry involves planting trees as crops as well as other plants as crops, usually next to each other. Lots of external news articles and papers that use the term "tree crop" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. If an article on this topic is written, this title can be usurped and the dab moved to Tree crop (disambiguation). Wug·a·po·des​ 05:47, 25 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alfa Romeo 169 → Alfa Romeo 166  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominate for deletion. No such car existed, it was an expected name and an expected car. Redirect remained as a remnant of a deleted article. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the name existed even if the car never got made. Clarity is not helped by someone having removed with whole explanation of the 169 history from the target without explanation and shortly after the merger, but that's hardly the fault of the redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the name was invented by expecting journalists, no concept car was made only a lot of media-created renderings, 169 name has nothing to do with 166 existing car. Same goes for the expected succesor for the 147 the Alfa Romeo 149. It is just a fake name that circulated in the press. YBSOne (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Google searches: Your search - site:fiatgroup.com "alfa romeo 169" - did not match any documents. No results found for site:fiatspa.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.it "alfa romeo 169". YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 16 September 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 Intersectionality. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Imperial feminism → State feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Imperial feminism and state feminism are sufficiently different topics that this redirect is unhelpful and potentially confusing, and adding discussion of the former to an article on the latter would not be appropriate. Whereas state feminism refers to "feminism created or approved by the government of a state or nation", imperial feminism carries a specific association with imperialism, and (as far as I can tell from a brief survey of the literature) also Eurocentrism, a white saviour mentality and the exclusion of intersectional perspectives. "Imperial feminism" is mentioned in a handful of other articles, but none strike me as more suitable targets. The tenth point of WP:RDEL also applies, as imperial feminism is certainly notable in its own right. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until converted into an article. From what you say, it sounds like adding an article would be a good idea, probably with cross-linking, even if it's a stub. However, it sounds like an international extension of state feminism, so the redirect seems appropriate until the article is created. Thus, the seventh point of WP:RKEEP applies. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Intersectionality which mentions the topic somewhat. feminist (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per feminist. Best solution is targeting a place where the term is discussed, second best is to delete in favor of a red link given the differences between imperial and state feminism. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:51, 25 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pop-trap → Trap music (EDM)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, this article re-directs to a genre that would seemingly be related but the term is never used there or explored there. It appears to be a genre that is not commonly used and should not be linked this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lengthy section that discusses it here Trap_music#Influence_and_cross-pollination. We shouldn't delete a genre redirect that is used by mainstream sources like The Seattle Times [3], Rolling Stone [4] - edit warring over info box genres is common, so we stick to what the sources say. Dartslilly (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are no sources that describe what this genre means or what differentiates it. Currently, the re-direct links to Trap as an EDM style, not the article you linked too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. I prefer to fix the article than to delete the redirect. Based on some of the better quality and more detailed sources you ask for the hi-hat of trap music crosses over with multiple genres (pop, EDM and hip hop) [5]. Dartslilly (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To follow-up, I am not doubting that there is a crossover between genres, but using this term and linking it like this is inappropriate as the term is not used in the trap article so it comes off as wishy-washy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)i[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.