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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik → UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like this redirect deleted to maintain consistent naming convention regarding UFC event pages. Even if minor or somewhat unnecessary, the use of this redirect is no longer needed because UFC Vegas 6 now serves as a rightful redirect to the target article. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please remember to always add an RfD tag when nominating a redirect. I’ve already added one for this nomination. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as all configurations of redirects are created to specifically be aimed at the targeted primary article. All he nominator had to do was create UFC Vegas 6 (as it was still a red link at the time), instead of moving the redirected page which should not have even been moved to begin with. I have, likely, created the majority of UFC redirects for the 2019 and 2020 UFC page redirects, and this nominator's actions by moving this particular redirect was completely uncalled for and can even be considered vandalism, making a simple situation complicated, as I had to move the article back, then re-target the redirected page that was caused by the unneeded move. Also, concerning redirected pages to their intended primary targets, consistency on my part is the very thing being used here in opposition to what the nominator's fabricated wordings above mention. --Discographer (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: I'll try and keep one on my talk page from now on. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Discographer: You might interpret it as that, but I'm not the one responsible for making simple situations complicated. It's the stupid way things are done here that sees me asking for deletion because, sadly, they don't give you the option of deleting things yourself. Also, what 'fabricated wordings' are you referring to? My request regarding this redirect? Seriously, if you're all about consistency and want to keep the UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik redirect, you could've just moved it back without actually creating it. Simply put, I for one don't create pages for the sake of redirecting other users because it's a waste of time and creates unnecessary discussion around an issue that matters very little. I'll leave you a message on your talk page about UFC event articles and their redirects. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@29cwcst: I have left a note on my talk page for you. --Discographer (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirects don't need to follow naming conventions, and it would be rather counterproductive if they did. This couldn't refer to anything else, so it can only help readers. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: It's a mistake though, which could result in me moving the UFC Vegas, UFC Vegas 2, UFC Vegas 3, UFC Vegas 4 and UFC Vegas 5 redirects so that they all include the main event in their respective titles as well. I really wish editors would actually learn how to create appropriate redirects because this is what happens. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@29cwcst: Your comment above really makes no sense, considering none of those event redirects have to be moved, as like that of UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik and UFC Vegas 6. --Discographer (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Discographer: They will if this redirect isn't deleted, because consistency and convention should always be maintained. By not deleting this redirect, you lead me to contradict myself. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the mistake? The article confirms the event is known as UFC Vegas 6, and the fight was between Lewis and Oleinik. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Granted, but the number 6 is mentioned in the title, along with the main event. This is the only UFC Vegas redirect that features both in their title, not simply one or the other. If we keep it, then I will create identical redirects for the 5 previous UFC Vegas events so that both consistency and convention is maintained here. The quickest solution is to simply delete this redirect. However, if you believe that it can only help readers, then creating identical redirects for all UFC Vegas events should presumably do the same. I'm preparing to do that because other users never want these redirects deleted. Either way, I've made my point and won't make any further argument(s) now. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the UFC Vegas event redirects have previously been created. See table below. --Discographer (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for UFC Veagas events have already been created, all chronologically, beginning with the earliest and ending with the most recent event:

UFC Vegas
Date	Event
May 30, 2020	UFC Vegas 1 — UFC Vegas: Woodley vs. Burns — UFC Vegas 1: Woodley vs. Burns → UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns
June 13, 2020	UFC Vegas 2 — UFC Vegas: Eye vs. Calvillo — UFC Vegas 2: Eye vs. Calvillo → UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo
June 20, 2020	UFC Vegas 3 — UFC Vegas: Blaydes vs. Volkov — UFC Vegas 3: Blaydes vs. Volkov → UFC on ESPN: Blaydes vs. Volkov
June 27, 2020	UFC Vegas 4 — UFC Vegas: Poirier vs. Hooker — UFC Vegas 4: Poirier vs. Hooker → UFC on ESPN: Poirier vs. Hooker
August 1, 2020	UFC Vegas 5 — UFC Vegas: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan — UFC Vegas 5: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan → UFC Fight Night: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan
August 8, 2020	UFC Vegas 6 — UFC Vegas: Lewis vs. Oleinik — UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik → UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik
·

The same applies with UFC Fight Island event redirects:

UFC Fight Island
Date	Event
July 16, 2020	UFC Fight Island 1 — UFC Fight Island: Kattar vs. Ige — UFC Fight Island 1: Kattar vs. Ige → UFC on ESPN: Kattar vs. Ige
July 18, 2020	UFC Fight Island 2 — UFC Fight Island: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 — UFC Fight Island 2: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 → UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
July 25, 2020	UFC Fight Island 3 — UFC Fight Island: Whittaker vs. Till — UFC Fight Island 3: Whittaker vs. Till → UFC on ESPN: Whittaker vs. Till
·

bold denotes, as the final link in each row, primary target

The same has been done for UFC on ESPN and UFC on ESPN+ event redirects.

All up-to-date also. --Discographer (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2020 (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 List of "-gate" scandals. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shirtgate → Matt Taylor (scientist)#Shirt controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as dependent on removed content. The section in question was moved to another article, and then it was deleted. I've followed the diffs and don't think this topic is covered in any article anymore, so there's nowhere to redirect to. Gaioa (T C L) 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The joke had its 15 minutes and it's now time to clean up the WP:UNDUE remnants. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of "-gate" scandals where it's mentioned (for now, anyway). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud, mentioned at the proposed target. Not a very active user (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• American Hitler → George Lincoln Rockwell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Totally ambiguous, as this epithet has been used for multiple people. I don't think it's worth the effort to set up a disambiguation for a derogatory term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It would be better if it were mentioned in Rockwell's article, but I think the epithet is indeed most closely related to him. See the search results, where the only other person identified as such is Andrew Jackson (at Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson), plus a few false positives in phrases like "American Hitler biographer". --BDD (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BDD: You may want to check Google search results. Just on the first page, I see references to William Dudley Pelley and George W. Bush. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: You would think that if someone was the American Hitler, they would have actually held political power. This person, being quite insignificant, does not qualify. Also not a commonly used term.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not helpful because it could mean any number of disagreeable characters. See also Nazi analogies. (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 11 August 2020 (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. Redirect has already been tagged for speedy deletion (per author’s request), and will be deleted by the next patrolling admin. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shot nine times → 50 Cent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Request for deletion — I created this redirect in 2008 and it hasn't been touched since. I think it was a joke (referring to 50 Cent's then-frequent references to his shooting), but my memory is fuzzy on the topic. In any event, I don't think anyone's plausibly searching for 50 Cent on this phrase (the stats page shows a sustained near-zero usage) and while he's certainly made hay out of being shot nine times, he is not the only person who's survived that particular kind of attack. Krinn DNZ (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: FYI, it's usually best not to close a discussion with its nominated redirected tagged for speedy deletion until after the deletion has occurred. I've seen cases where the patrolling admin has denied a speedy tag placed on a nominated redirect, meaning that the discussion would have to be reopened at that point, and there's no guarantee that anyone would notice or do that. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Got it, will refrain from making these early closures next time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:35, 11 August 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scandinavian word for German. WP:RFFL. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RLOTE. Also, possible confusion with Tyskie. Narky Blert (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Names of Germany. It would not be alone among foreign-language redirects there. I still think this is valuable even though we're talking about "German" rather than "Germany" (the former, of course, is also an adjectival form of the latter). --BDD (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete, for lack of affinity, though it's mostly harmless. There are, by the way, a few other articles containing Tysk in the title, but nothing direct enough to justify disambiguation. BD2412 T 06:04, 15 August 2020 (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) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of highest medals → List of highest military decorations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The search term doesn't necessarily refer to military decorations. We could redirect to Lists of awards, but that doesn't fit the "highest" criterion. I'm thus leaning towards deletion in the absence of a better target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Medals are not exclusive to awards or military decorations. Probably best to scrap it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could also refer to inter alia sporting medals and medals awarded by learned societies (see e,g, Royal Geographical Society#Medals and awards, which are several). Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2020 (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) 15:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Galician regional election → 2020 Galician regional election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This election happened a couple of months ago: "Next" no longer applies. Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2020 (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) 15:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant prose → Wikipedia:Featured articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in page 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cross-namespace redirect, does not sound like an encyclopedic topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (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 Wave Hill (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wave Hill (Australia) → Kalkarindji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what should be done about this, but as you can see by the Wave Hill (disambiguation) page, there are three Australian possibilities for this name. Perhaps Wave Hill should be renamed Wave Hill (New York), and Wave Hill (Australia) becomes a DAB page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wave Hill (disambiguation) as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). Standard, when there's more than one place in a country, state or county. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Narky Blert. I tried to change it myself, but wasn't sure about removing the rfd template and messed it up, so undid my revision. Should I just wait for someone else to action it, or...? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: If I'd come across this one myself (good catch BTW), I'd probably have made the change myself, after checking the links-in. However, once a discussion has been opened, it's best to wait for someone uninvolved to close it. There's WP:NOHURRY. Narky Blert (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do, ta Narky Blert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laterthanyouthink (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex 40 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Complex 41 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 41  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Complex 39 → Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous and confusing redirects. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All uses I could find on the first pages of Wikipedia searches were for the complexes at Cape Canaveral. Ambiguity must be demonstrated. It's not enough that the phrases could, hypothetically, refer to something else. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2020 (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) 15:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Division I men's soccer independents soccer records → Template:2012 Division I men's soccer independents soccer records  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

inappropriate target and unnecessary redirect. This would only make sense to compile a record of independent schools's seasons, but that wouldn't be appropriate for a template. Better this redirect be deleted Jay eyem (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:32, 10 August 2020 (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) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Platinum Motorsports → Travis Braden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not even the correct name of the team - it calls itself "Team Platinum" per [1] and so does the driver that it redirects to per [2]. I would be okay with a move but Team Platinum is not owned by Travis Braden, nor is he the team's only driver (see [3]). Just doesn't fit as a redirect to anywhere. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In the article Travis Braden it says he drove for "Platinum Motorsports", not "Team Platinum" so if that's an error that should be changed (but since he didn't own the team and it is barely mentioned in the article there's no reason to keep!). Also it looks like a separate (presumably non-notable) company goes by the name "Platinum Motorsport" ([4]) so the redirect could cause confusion with that as well. A7V2 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2020 (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. Soviet space shuttle has never been discussed at RfD, so I'll retarget it for consistency. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian space shuttle → Buran (spacecraft)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Buran programme. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Do not retarget. The Buran (spacecraft) article refers to the actual spacecraft, which is what readers are obviously looking for. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then retarget Soviet space shuttle to Buran (spacecraft). Can someone relist and add Soviet space shuttle in this nomination? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:17, 9 August 2020 (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) 15:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Malaysian name → Template:Indian patronymic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This template redirect is unused and points to an incorrect target as not all Malaysians have Indian names. A possible retarget is ((Malay name)) but not all Malaysians have Malay names either. Despite being marked for possibilities and it is cheaper to redirect, there isn't a satisfactory target for this redirect to point to and it is better to delete it than to have it possibly used incorrectly. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Malaysian name is very wide as it consists of Malay, Chinese, Indians, native people etc., hence this redirect to exclusively Indian name template is not appropriate and will not work for non-Indian name. WPSamson (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WPSamson. I imagine also that some Indian communities in Malaysia use patronymics and some surnames, just as they do in India. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (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.