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 unless and until the concept article is written. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of the subjects at the target disambiguation page are referenced by this title. Unless there is a proper alternative target for this redirect (I don't consider Oblivious a proper retargeting option since "Obliviousness" is not the title of any of the subjects over there either), the best option may be to either delete or retarget to Wiktionary:obliviousness. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of think we should have an article on the concept of obliviousness. There is actually decent coverage in sources. BD2412 T 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have started Draft:Obliviousness. BD2412 T 14:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to enable uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may take me a few weeks to finish the draft; I have no objection to deleting the redirect until then. BD2412 T 20:16, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative community → Utopia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This expression is ambiguous and the redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 23 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 Monster#Monsters in fiction. (non-admin closure) CaptainGalaxy 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fictional monster → Character (arts)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This target just doesn't seem like the correct or most plausible target. I'm not sure about retargeting to Monster either since it seems as though that subject has some non-fictional aspect, but retargeting there may be the best option in lieu of deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget redirecting to Character(arts) isn't appropriate. I should think the most logical target is Monster#Monsters in fiction. I don't think this is controversial. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have nominated this for deletion. It could have just as easily been fixed by hand. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Monster. Aren't all monsters fictional? :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No; read the cultural heritage section of Monster. It should be retargeted to Monster#Monsters in fiction. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I see "fictional" in this case as having the wider meaning of "not real" rather than the narrow one of "appearing in fiction (as opposed to myth"). And I take "monster" to refer to the monsters that our article is about, rather than in the broader sense of "anything characterised by monstrosity", which is what the ancient Greek examples mentioned in the "Cultural heritage" section seem to represent. – Uanfala (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah ... the lead section of Monster reads as though there is a concept of monsters which exist in reality... Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Seventyfiveyears at 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to where? Two options have been presented above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Monster#Monsters in fiction per above. This action might be helpful to readers, since the section provides background information about this subject. Regards, SONIC678 23:01, 21 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 disambiguate -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:FORRED. Target has no affinity to the Japanese language. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate (drafted below the redirect) for An Actress (Japanese: Joyū), Fumihiro Joyu, and a few WP:DABMENTIONed songs and such. (This is what I sometimes call a "WP:COATRACK dab": one that contains a bunch of extremely obscure stuff that probably no one is looking for, serves readers mainly by giving them a definition of a word, and barely manages to skirt WP:NOTDIC in the process) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. I was going to say delete to let Search do its job, but the draft disambiguation page is OK: thanks to the IP editor. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Craig Watkinson → Actor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful at current target. Previously targeted One Life to Live, but isn't mentioned there. Was previously an article, but it seems it was redirected in 2009 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Watkinson. Not sure if the content should be restored given that the AfD close was equivalent to "withdraw", or if this redirect should just be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current target is certainly inappropriate and the only other appearance in Enwiki is a minor mention at Judgment Day (1999 film). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Другие значения → Template:Other uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect from Russian name of the template. Has previously been [=newusers deleted] when it was a separate template. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clearly these types of redirects serve no purpose. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless and helpful for translating articles between different language WPs. See, for example, ((citat web)) and ((웹 인용)) and many others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, useful for translating per above (or convert to an auto-substituted wrapper). Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 24 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 per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible redirect, not even close to its target name. Seventyfiveyears at 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Very plausible phonetic misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Consistent with the pronunciation of the state's name, /ɪləˈnɔɪ/. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been used only 16 times all year, but it doesn't hurt anything and I can't think of anywhere else it could possibly redirect. Station1 (talk) 19:27, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Black and white artist → Illustrator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Black-and-white artist → Illustrator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page, leaving the association between the redirects and the target page unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to Black and white: per nom 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Black and white artist is an obsolete, possibly mostly British term for a type of illustrator, especially for newspapers. These redirects are barely used (the first has 2 incoming wikilinks and 38 views this year, the latter no links and 3 views), so can be safely deleted but should probably not be retargeted. Station1 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous with blackface. See (but preferably don't watch) The Black and White Minstrel Show. Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Black-and-white artist is a term that is in use, albeit infrequently: See Australian Cartoonists' Association (Black and White Artists Club already redirects there) and Franz Kline, who described himself as such, inspired by Phil May (caricaturist), the most celebrated black-and-white artist of the time. The best target would probably be Caricaturist if that weren't a redirect to a list. Better to not have it at all then send people to the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 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 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jackpot baby → Anchor baby  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. There was discussion in 2006 about merging, but oddly, the same user who merged content almost immediately removed it. Google results are heterogenous, including books of this title and people celebrating wins ("Jackpot, baby!"). The top result is from Urban Dictionary, which lumps in the "anchor baby" sense with other perceived instances of people having babies for benefit, such as welfare payments. There are no instances of the phrase anywhere on Wikipedia. BDD (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No info at the target or anywhere else in enwiki, therefore useless to readers. Narky Blert (talk) 16:22, 21 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 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• National Mindless Eating Challenge → Brian Wansink  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in this or any other article. My inquiry at Talk:Brian Wansink a month ago hasn't met with a response, so there doesn't seem to be any appetite (no pun intended) for adding a mention of the challenge to the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No mention of this supposed challenge anywhere in enwiki. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the National Mindless Eating Challenge was a project (not a publication, I think?) by Wansink which he says ([1]) had to be shut down when he took a government job, but still gets mentioned in scholarly works ([2]) and blogs ([3]). Something about it could probably be added to Wansink's article, and that's the correct target anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is confusing if there's no mention at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 23 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 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Coronavirus 2019 USA → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect use of the draft namespace, a declined AFC submission redirected to the namespace. Pages in the draft namespace aren't a logical search term for the articlespace, and there's no useful page history here. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:28, 21 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 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:COVID-19 pandemic in United States → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect use of the Draft: namespace, as it was created as a redirect from the draft space to the article space. Not a valid search term. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Improper use of "Draft:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Implausible creation; should have been CSDed per R2/R3 after its creation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I think at least some of these redirects have been created when their creators didn't know that they should have been proposed at WP:AFC/R. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:52, 21 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 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• States affected with coronavirus → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States#Current number of non-repatriated cases by state  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"States" is ambiguous in this usage. Other, non-US countries have states, and "states" is sometimes used as shorthand for nation-states or countries. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. "State" isn't just shorthand for "nation-state"; the EU consists of 27 member states. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget: per above; maybe add a hatnote for the current target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:32, 21 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 16:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:COVIDUS → COVID-19 pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Odd XNR, the WP to article namespace isn't common. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Improper use of WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-namespace redirect, also an implausible abbreviation. 03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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 16:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coronaviris in Italy → COVID-19 pandemic in Italy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, most likely because it says "Coronaviris" instead of "Coronavirus". Seventyfiveyears at 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per J947ian philosophy: what is to be gained by deleting misspelled article titles? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soymua-9874, no other redirects with "Coronaviris" redirect to the pages with titles containing the words "Coronavirus", "COVID", "COVID-19". Seventyfiveyears at 12:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, if you are going to mention another user in such a fashion, they really should be notified they were mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging in this scenario is canvassing in a way, I guess – and it's rather impolite not to ping. So maybe it's more helpful if I simply aren't mentioned in the first place. The previous times this has happened I've made a point not to !vote in the discussion, and I won't here either. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I'm not sure if pinging you here "canvassing" since my understanding of the Wikipedia definition of "canvassing" is either pinging someone out of practically nowhere with the intention of them trying to drastically alter the outcome of a discussion since they either know the editor who pinged them (okay, maybe it was "canvassing" in a way), or broadcasting the existence of the discussion on third party venues. But yes, I agree that Soumya-8974 (pinging you on purpose since I'm essentially asking you not to do this again) shouldn't have mentioned you at all. Here, I consider your mention borderline slander, and the thought of bringing this up at WP:ANI came to my mind against Soumya-8974 due to the nature of the comment. However, since this is the first time (well, actually, second, but I cannot recall the other time at the moment) I've seen this happen, and since I'm not the topic of the comment, I decided at this time, I'm not going to be the one to file such a report, but I am going to consider my ping to Soumya-8974 above me informing them this is a behavior I would consider actionable since it benefits no one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's impolite to mention someone else without sending them a ping? This is not the wikipedia I thought I knew! I'm finding that surprising. I thought you only pinged people when you were soliciting their opinion. And I certainly didn't know that favourably quoting another editor would be seen as slander, and one worthy of ANI at that! – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
          • I don't see it as a "favorable" mention, but rather a statement slandering another editor by categorizing them as having a specific stance and/or mindset. In this case, I think the mentioned editor has a right to know they were mentioned, given the context. Either way, I've seen editors get blocked for even smaller offenses via ANI or just via mentioning the offense. Some administrators don't take harassment of even the slightest lightly. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Sen:esepera... — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, that certainly puts things into perspective. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
              • Yep, that was the "other time" I couldn't recall. Paints a rather clear picture. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict × 2) I didn't mean that your pinging was canvassing, given that me and you likely have opposing opinions on whether this redirect should be deleted. I meant that if Soumya had pinged me that would be canvassing. Also, I don't mind altogether that I'm being mentioned – it isn't really like it's going on without me noticing, as I generally skim over all open RfDs. As a further aside, I think that Soumya has mentioned me in a similar manner twice before (and perhaps more while I was on a half-hiatus from RfD). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • "...me and you likely have opposing opinions on whether this redirect should be deleted." Possibly, but that doesn't excuse Soumya-8974 from referencing you the way they did. And the rest of what I could have said to this comment is covered by the responses to my "I don't see it as a "favorable" mention..." comment above, so I can't think of anything else to say at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible misspelling. We don't have the redirect coronaviris; this is in the only mention of coronaviris in enwiki. Narky Blert (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Narky Blert. I know referring to WP:PANDORA often results in opposition, but I feel like this is exactly the case where it should apply. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invoking WP:PANDORA is similar to saying: This redirect is fine, but if similar ones were created they would be bad. For me at least, that makes no sense. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Narky. Clearly an implausible misspelling. No need to invoke PANDORA though, as I agree with J947's opinion above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:28, 22 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 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 侯世达 → Douglas Hofstadter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target seems to have no affinity with any non-English language. Steel1943 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 刪除: per nom 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:40, 21 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 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FARG-HE → Fragging  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Probably best to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched FARG-HE on Google and got nothing. Delete, unless somebody can demonstrate FARG-HE is notable. Smallchief (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever it is, Enwiki has nothing about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 23 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. General consensus that the current target is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 18:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could also be the minced oath of Jesus. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible title match, and I don't think an encyclopedia is supposed to be a minced oath search engine. Alternatively, weak retarget to Wiktionary:geez, but doing so would impair readers trying to find the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguate per Wbm1058's comment below since I cannot determine a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now "meh". Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeez was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Jeez. Retarget to Wiktionary is a nonstarter: Geez (magazine). – wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lots of usage of this spelling in academic literature. The target already has a hatnote for the magazine, and the RfD discussion identified by Wbm1058 suggests that we shouldn't worry about the minced oath. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to see a primary topic here, but dabifying is definitely viable, if only to remove the need for having a hatnote on a major article linking to a very obscure topic. If a dab page is created, it could also have entries for Geez script, wikt:geez, and, in the "see also" section, for Gees. The redirect receives about 7 views a day, probably most are from people looking for the language. If that number was lower I would be more eager to advocate a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible mispelling. Seventyfiveyears at 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we keep it (I don't feel strongly), we should add a hatnote at Ge'ez for minced oath. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from modification)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 23 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) Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently "zitat" is the German word for "quote" (I had to ask). I otherwise would have had no clue why this redirected here. In any case, Replace any existing uses and delete (there are under 100), since this isn't dewiki. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect, or change to auto-subst with Template:Quote. As we can see from the 77 transclusions, foreign-language templates are useful for editors who copy and paste content from Wikipedia in other languages. See ((Cita libro)) for an example (which was originally a redirect and which has been tricked out over the years). – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect or arrange for auto-subst. When importing German articles, it saves having to reformat the templates every time. Better to automate the process if we can, then everyone's happy. Bermicourt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, useful for translating per above (or convert to an auto-substituted wrapper). Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 24 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 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Badinkadink → Phineas and Ferb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can find no information about badinkadink on enwiki. Likewise, the first three pages of a Google search brings up nothing about Phineas and Ferb, it's mostly jokes related to badonkadonk. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Badinkadink" and whilst it might be a fictional reference it's confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to buttocks (where badonkadonk redirects, possibly nsfw) as a plausible misspelling: both of the errors are o -> i replacements, very easy to mostype. Ovanvectir (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. People looking for definitions of obscure slang terms are far better served by Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary (which can provide usage examples and context) than a bare Wikipedia redirect pointing to an article which doesn't mention the term they searched for, leaving them guessing why they ended up where they did (((R from synonym))? ((R from subtopic))? Vandalism?) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:25, 21 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 Move to Diesel (disambiguation) and redirect to Diesel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Diesel fuel/redirs → Diesel fuel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looks like an old remnant of a series of page moves. I'm not detecting anything particularly useful in the page history, although others may have differing opinions on that. Probably should've been deleted when it was moved to this to make way to another page. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to keep, clearly a round-robin move but Anthony Appleyard knows what he's doing and if there wasn't some reason to keep this I'm sure he would have deleted it already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hog Farm and Ivanvector: A long succession of page Diesel fuel being moved and moved back, had accumulated at Diesel fuel a long list of redirect and associated edits, and I moved that accumulated clutter aside to page Diesel fuel/redirs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Diesel (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect to complete the round robin, which should then retarget to Diesel. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do what Tavix said. Steel1943 (talk) 09:56, 21 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 15:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Zitterio → Stereophonic sound  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Judging from Google this is a real surname (possibly an alternative spelling^{[original research?]} of Citterio), but neither English nor Italian Wikipedia mentions anyone with this surname. It is not a plausible misspelling of stereo either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No other mention in enwiki. FWIW, a Google search turned up zilch other than a few blogs by people with that surname. I suspect that it's an anglicisation of the Italian "Citterio" to approximate the pronunciation, though "Chitterio" would be closer.^{[original research?]} Narky Blert (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about Zitterio. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 23 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.