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 Email marketing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Email blast → Email marketing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Email Blasting → Email spam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should both either target the same article, or both should be deleted. I have no preference on either option. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, merge the targets? What email marketing is not spam? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask HP to send me announcements of new printers. They send e-mail about new printers and nothing else. That's marketing and solicited. The instant they send me announcements of scanners, it's spam, but as long as they restrict themselves to what they have permission for, the e-mail is not spam. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good explanation. It's not my experience at all, but it's a good explanation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• [Re]target both to email marketing, in light of Chatul's explanation. An email blast (and e-blast, for the other discussion) refers to the practice of mass-delivering marketing emails (probably more specifically, the content of a marketing email which is mass-delivered), and that's what we should target. The fact that a subset of marketing emails may be unsolicited (and thus spam) is not relevant to this description. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, as neither the email spam or email marketing article explain what "blasting" means. A reader wanting to know what the term means won't be helped much by either of the proposed targets. If an explanation of the term can be added to an article, then I support retargerting both redirects to that article. Not a very active user (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Email marketing. Cambridge associates the term with marketing, but not explicitly or exclusively with spam. --Bsherr (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Email marketing. I have never heard the term in reference to (non-marketing) spam, but the term is in common usage in the field of digital marketing. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:58, 4 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lunar Module → Apollo Lunar Module  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to lunar module per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, obviously. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as is, there is only one capitalized Lunar Module, which is the name of the spaceship. In lower case it is often misdirected to the lunar module page when referring to the Apollo spaceship, and directing the upper case to the lesser page will layer it with another class of misdirects. This has been directed properly since 2003, nothing broken and it should remain as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to distinct between a class of lunar landers with the Apollo LM by just capitalisation, then look at the double entendre of Wuhan virus. Wuhan virus (with space) is the SARS-CoV-2, while Wuhanvirus (without space) is a genus of viruses in the family Autographiviridae. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#Wuhan virus for more. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's a space between words, an entirely different kind of animal. Upper casing Lunar Module to search for the Apollo Lunar Module seems a natural redirect, and has done pretty well since 2003. And I really want to commend you in a public discussion, so thank you, Soumya-8974, for recently creating the really nice page Lunar Module Eagle. I paraphrase what someone else said, and wonder "Why hasn't anyone written this article before?" It's the spaceship which a guy flew to land on the Moon by having to dodge craters and rocks with the help of his valued navigator. And nobody ever wrote an article about it before you. Pretty cool, thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 28 July 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. On the only question before us—the suitability of this redirect—there's clear consensus to delete. Any discussion of similar redirects or the underlying policy must happen separately. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SPEAKENGLISH → Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#english  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The phrase "Speak English" is often used as a racist term to keep people from using their native language in other countries. While it may be semi-appropriate here as this is an English language project, not a country specific one, it still keeps those racist undertones; can prevent people from discussing articles related to their country in their language; and is mostly irrelevant now due to automatic translation tools like Google Translate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wholeheartedly agree that this redirect is racist passive aggression and should be retired immediately. Smirkybec (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that this redirect carries uncomfortable undertones. I think that WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is a more suitable shortcut for this guideline. If a consensus for deletion is found, the closer should make sure to change the shortcut listed at the target (or at least remove it). I do want to rebut one point made by nom, however, which is that the underlying guideline that we should use English is appropriate, and Google Translate, while a useful tool, is not sophisticated enough to remove all language boundaries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Utterly inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pejorative connotation not conducive to editing environment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What "race" speaks English? All of them? English is both a lingua franca and the language employed by this project. If an editor cannot speak English, how will they contribute, and if they can contribute, how will they maintain a collegial relationship with English-speaking editors? Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this discussion is less about suggesting that editors don't have to speak English, and more that this specific phrase is commonly deployed as a xenophobic epithet elsewhere and is unnecessarily offputting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like Elizium, it doesn't come across to me as racist in the context of Wikipedia. Its imperative tone perhaps is impolite. But what's the solution for the fifty pages that use it as a link? Break them and forget it? --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  With so few pages affected, I'm not sure that a solution is needed, but if that's a significant worry, I imagine we could correct those 49 links by hand, being sure to pipe the links in the case of signed comments. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It could have also been used in edit summaries and log messages, which can't ever be corrected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it'll be pretty obvious what those editors meant, this isn't an opaque initialism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any evidence of this being the case, Jackmcbarn? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not in an easily-accessible way. Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't keep track of links from edit summaries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that it seems unlikely that this page would be linked in an edit summary and that there's fewer than 50 references to it outside of edit summaries, I think the burden of proof would be on you to show that it has been linked in an edit summary. I'm sure that the technology to make that determination exists, seeing as there are per-user edit summary search engines.

  Frankly, the argument you are raising here would seem to be a red herring. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a red herring. It's an explicitly required consideration. See WP:RFD#KEEP #4. I'd also be interested to know if there is a way to search edit summaries, as I am not aware of it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is indeed a required consideration. It is only reasonable, however, to believe that the risk is negligible given what evidence we have. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is most certainly a red herring. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence to the contrary is that it is a nine year old redirect with over 50 links. We're not usually in the habit of calling that "negligible" here. --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you may have misread me, Bsherr. I was referring to the risk of there being a link to the redirect in an edit summary as negligible, not the links to the redirect outside of edit summaries. (The latter can be easily corrected, as you noted below.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think correcting existing links to piped links would be a good solution if the redirect is deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  " it doesn't come across to me as racist" Well, that's lovely for you. But the issue is not how it appears to you; it is how it is likely to come across to others. That, and the fact that we have equally serviceable alternatives which do not have racist connotations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pigsonthewing: I said it doesn't come across to me as racist (as opposed to saying it's not racist) so as not to devalue those who encounter it differently. (Personal attack removed) and think I were appointing myself the sole arbiter of the issue. (Personal attack removed) --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the English Wikipedia. Speaking English is in fact required on the English Wikipedia, and this redirect entirely validly makes that point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd read the section to which this benighted phrase is redirected, you would have seen that English is not in fact, required on this project. Nor should it be. But that is not the point, and if we want to ask people to use English, there are better tool available with which to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: Look at this page. I used a combination of Bengali and English in that page, and none advised me to use English only. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – In general usage, the phrase has pejorative overtones and this is further evidenced in the WP:BITEy way the link was used recently. WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is more than sufficient. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Pppery, and also just because Google Translate exists doesn't mean that it's okay to make everyone else use it to understand you on the English Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a debate about a change of policy. It's a discussion about whether the redirect SPEAKENGLISH → Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#english is helpful. --Slashme (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It takes very little research to determine this is a phrase with racist connotations in certain cultural contexts. That it can also have a non-racist literal meaning, especially in other cultural contexts, does not mean this should be an acceptable phrasing in Wikipedia. I would expect most Wikipedians who use this do not have racist intentions. Regardless of their intentions, though, they should not be led into using a term that could be understood in a racist way by the people they are directing this term at. We should not permit a shortcut like this which could reasonably be perceived as a racist insult, especially by a new non-native-English speaking editor who may have life experiences of racism. Dominic·t 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for political reasons per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that the verb chosen is "speak" instead of the more likely "write in" or "use" makes it clear that it is deliberately copying the dull complaints of xenophobes. Tdslk (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as racist/xenophobic. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Dominic, Tdslk, and common sense. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons outlined by Mike Peel. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because regardless of whether it is racist or not it seems redundant to have this redirect when we have an official shortcut which has more widespread usage and is more polite. This is a shortcut someone would be unlikely to just stumble across if they were looking for the right shortcut as WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is listed on the talk page guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The challenge in fixing the issue of redirects that exists in different pages (which indeed puts burden on volunteers) is not why a phrase that is historically used as a racist remark should continue to exist. With that logic, all colonial and racist terms should be allowed as it puts burden on many to fix what is written -- in fact most things indigenous are oral whereas most things documented have a contribution of colonialism. Why a shortcut has to remind a non-native speaker the impolite and racist remark that they would have received at some point in their life? Why it is not possible to find an alternative without a baggage? Why technical issues will be treated above humans? --Psubhashish (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not helpful and promotes WP:BITEy behaviour. --Slashme (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above: carries xenophobic undertones, not particularly appropriate for the target, negligible use. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless we also delete the text it redirects to. The racism and bigotry many of the above complain about really is there. If we want to deal with it, we need to delete racist bigoted statements in policies, not just helpful redirects that allow people to find them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and their brethren. @Toddy1: I agree we need to delete racist bigoted statements in policies. What would those be, though? The test it redirects to is "English is preferred: This is the English-language Wikipedia, so discussions should normally be conducted in English. If you need to use another language, then try to provide a translation, or ask for help at Wikipedia:Embassy. Shortcut WP:ENGLISHPLEASE." Which part of that do you consider a racist bigoted statement what needs to be deleted? --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you consider that WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is either racist or xenophobic - then you should delete the policy (i.e. all those words).
  • But if you think that the policy is OK, then deleting a redirect that helps people to cite the policy, is extremely stupid.

Either delete the redirect and the policy, or neither.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all the case, a redirect can be offensive while pointing to a perfectly good policy. Just imagine WP:YOUAREALIAR pointing to WP:V. (Also, no one in this discussion has objected to WP:ENGLISHPLEASE, this is about WP:SPEAKENGLISH.)--GRuban (talk) 15:16, 13 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) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-error4im → Template:Uw-vandalism4im  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of the other series at WP:UTM have redirects at the 4im level. The reason is there is a conscious decision that "only warning" user warnings not be used for these issues. Same should apply with the uw-errorX series. Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 3 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 Criticism of Microsoft Windows. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• M$ Windoze → Satiric misspelling#Currency signs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not used as an example in the article. Since this doesn't seem to be used by reliable sources, this should be deleted. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. Whether it is used be reliable sources is not relevant for a redirect. What matters is whether it is (a) a plausible search term for something, and (b) if it is, whether someone using that search term will find relevant information at the target. In this case the exact phrase gets literally thousands of hits on google, so the answer to the first question is clearly yes. The answer to the second question is less clear - M$ redirects to the current section where it gets a mention, so I don't think anyone will be massively surprised to end up there. However Windoze redirects to Criticism of Microsoft Windows and while the term is not mentioned there, it is clearly what anyone using the term is doing or referring to, so has the more directly relevant content so I think it would make a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Thryduulf's sensible rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 4 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) (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Challenger Spacecraft → Space Shuttle Challenger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous. Could also mean Apollo 17 LM Challenger. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the shuttle is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this phrase, both when searching generally and with the exact phrase. A hatnote to the Apollo lunar module can be added. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Challenger (disambiguation); ambiguous per nom, and not the proper name for this target. Plus, this target is more likely the Challenger shuttle, an aerospace vehicle, while the lunar lander is a purely space vehicle. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Challenger#Air and space craft. I think there is sufficient ambiguity and lack of clarity in a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the overwhelming primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - definitely the primary topic. I went through the Google scholar results for "Challenger spacecraft" looking for any mention of vehicles other than the space shuttle and gave up after finding nothing in the first 4 pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at current target, as the current target appears to be the primary topic. A hatnote can be added pointing to the other target. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:10, 3 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask Why → Enron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ask Why? → Enron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ask why → Enron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. That this was Enron's slogan in mentioned at Enron scandal, but a Google search indicates that this is not the primary topic for this phrase. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the slogan was stylized as "ask why." so perhaps we can do away with these other contenders and create this entry as a redirect after including the proper citations in Enron. QRep2020 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:37, 4 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019–2020 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2019-2020 outbreak → COVID-19 pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too ambiguous, could refer to several different things; the user who created this redirect had to add a hatnote distinguishing COVID-19 from the 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak, showing that this redirect actually makes navigation more difficult. Spicy (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly agree. A 2019-20 outbreak could either mean the COVID-19 pandemic (as the redirect suggests), or the 2019-2020 vaping lung illness outbreak. It's also not going to be searched by a lot of people, by thinking logically (like who even types "2019-20" right now?). I also agree with you; navigation becomes way more difficult, and the template of the COVID pandemic article increases. It can probably be a disambig page. GeraldWL 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete – It is a very common search term. I suggest either dabifying or keeping. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. ...→ COVID-19 pandemic, no need then to start, say, in 5 months, a new discussion à la 2019-2021... etc.—Pietadè (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Besides that, we have, e.g., articles covering WWI, WWII, 100YW, etc.; in terms of casualties, impact and so on, where are the differences? A blind hope, that it'll end by 2020-12-31...—Pietadè (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC) —Pietadè (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think it's possible to use this phrase devoid of context to refer to anything else right now. No hatnote should be required. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947 above. I suppose it’s rather obvious what these redirects both refer to, considering other outbreaks such as the 2019-2020 vaping lung illness outbreak have been far less notable. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but make another disambiguation page of "2019-2020" outbreak. The 2019-2020 outbreak is mainly the COVID-19 pandemic. I found more results that contain "2019-2020 outbreak", like 2019-2020 New Zealand measles outbreak, 2019-20 Philippines polio outbreak, and others. So I suggest that we could make the disambiguation page of this if it's possible. Seventyfiveyears at 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dab page with COVID as the primary topic seems sensible. Spicy (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dab page on COVID already exists, I'm referring to "Category:COVID-19" and "Category:COVID-19 pandemic". What Seventyfiveyears mean is making a disambig titled "2019-2020 outbreak" or "2019-20 ...", linking articles that has the words "2019-2020"/"20", and articles that happened during that period. This totally makes sense, and I upvote for that to be the result here. GeraldWL 09:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sceptical about such a PTM redirect. Are those outbreaks really referred to as "2019—20 outbreaks". If I were speaking about the 2019—20 Australian measles outbreak, I would absolutely rather leave out the year than the illness. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:36, 5 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. I hesitated to close since I was the previous closer, but both discussions have been unanimous and this one has been open for a bit. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Elise Zaavan → K/DA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. This is the name of a LoL character, but they don't appear to be directly associated with K/DA. A redirect at this title that pointed at League of Legends was deleted following an RfD discussion in February, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Elise Zaavan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per previous RfD discussion. No trace of any character with that name at target article, and no evidence of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:00, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 03:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

??? Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. Æ is a ligature, and that is often written as ae, so it's a possibly useful search term, see [1]. Especially as Æ cannot be easily typed on an English language keyboard. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not WP:CHEAP actually, but mentioned in the article as the unicode variant ("æ") at section "Computer encodings and entering." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a way for saying that alphabet, in which not all readers can type out that alphabet. It makes sense.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; that's the HTML mnemocode. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, as one basic google search indicates. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above. Æ is a ligature which explains the “lig” part on the title, so this is in fact a plausible and very useful search term. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 4 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 speedy keep as effectively a withdrawal by the nominator. This is not the forum for complaining over this RM. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AmericA → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See the RfD or ChinA. Recently created CamelCase redirects are not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if this CamelCase is proved to be useful, then retarget to America. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, retargetting to America would create a double redirect. Not a very active user (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What is this about? The redirect is from February 2001, and the proposed target redirects to the current. Just add ((Radr)). @Soumya-8974: If this clears it up, I suggest you close the nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that America is a dab page. Why the US became overwhelmingly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of America? Are the searchers ignorant about South America? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:26, 3 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 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Independence of Pakisatn → Pakistan Movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects are cheap, but this one is a typo and therefore unnecessary. Very unlikely that someone would search for "Independence of Pakistan" with this misspelling. Therefore, I propose deletion. Mar4d (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - silliness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as harmless and slightly helpful; what is to be gained by deleting this redirect? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Implausible misspelling. Correctly spelled counterpart Independence of Pakistan already exists. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note that Pakisatn doesn't exist, so this doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible typo. – Uanfala (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above "DEL" arguments. Many of us browsing through Wikipedia or Google cannot misspell the name of an internationally-notable country. And if one accidentally did, I am 100% sure that Wikipedia's search system will bring up the correctly-spelled article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:49, 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 retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail. Per the discussion below, editors who participated in this discussion have volunteered to correct the incoming links to these redirects, so I'll leave them to it. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL → Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Dailymail → Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:Daily Mail → Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:DAILY MAIL → Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail. Reason: 1) the shortcut pin was not removed (or was removed but put back); and 2) the link to the RfC is already included in the table, so having this link point to the RfC omits crucial information that is only provided in that table and WP:RSPS. By retargeting it to the link I am suggesting, we solve both of these problems. There was already an RfD back here, but I think consensus may have changed in a year and a half. Aasim 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget I voted to put it to the current location in the last RfD and was original creator of the redirect. But I agree that the proposed target is now better, since is gives a concise overview of the discussions with appropriate links. Also, it's the same as the also depreciated WP:THESUN. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support retarget - RSP provides a succinct summary as well as links to previous discussions, including the current target. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all per nom. I actually had occasion recently to link to an overview of the Daily Mail consensus; it took me a couple of goes to find WP:RSPDM, which actually does point to the relevant bit of RS/PS. Narky Blert (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Link to previous discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all per nom, seems like a cut-and-dry improvement over the current targets. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Already rejected. Awesome Aasim mentioned only the 2018 RfC, actually there was a later one. Additional participants were Dlthewave GreenMeansGo Guy Macon JzG Lourdes Moxy Nardog Newslinger Slatersteven Wumbolo, and closers were Feminist + Amorymeltzer. I fail to see any substantial change or anything that was not discussed already. My own opinion is unchanged. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is and add a link to the archived RfC Are any of the editors who are supporting a retarget willing to go and edit the hundreds of comments where someone made a comment about the RfC using the link WP:DAILYMAIL? Does Wikipedia have a policy against waiting until hundreds of people use a link to refer to a particular page and then suddenly and without their permission making those comments link to a different page? If we don't have such a policy we should create one. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
• Retarget: I no longer have concerns about the old links now that multiple editors have committed to fixing them after we retarget. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is and add a link to the archived RfC for the same reason I gave in the previous RfD: Although Perennial Sources may be the best target in an ideal world, these shortcuts are already used extensively to point to the 2018 RfC specifically and changing that target would change the meaning of existing comments in various discussions. A secondary concern is that editors who are unaware of the retargeting may continue using WP:DAILYMAIL to refer to the 2018 RfC.

I don't see the 2018 RfC being a source of confusion since editors are generally aware that old discussions may not reflect current consensus or include the full body of discourse, but adding a WP:RSPSOURCES link to the RfC archive would be a way to address that concern without affecting existing links. –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy Macon that a retarget is fine as long as the old links are fixed, don't have a strong opinion either way. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (As I was pinged.) I'm inclined to think that the best way to resolve confusion without creating different confusion is probably to just keep the link the same, and add some type of ad hoc hat note. GMG^talk 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems somewhat ridiculous to not want to retarget purely over concerns about old links to the RfC. It's fairly common for shortcuts to specific discussions to get retargeted to general policy pages a few years down the line, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail includes links to all of the relevant RfCs. I think reducing confusion to new editors who are trying to learn why The Daily Mail is banned should be a higher priority than reducing confusion for experienced editors who are digging through old talk page archives. The latter is likely to understand how redirects and RfCs work and that the shortcut was retargeted, the former significantly less so. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course, making it a disambiguation page is always an option as well, though that seems to me to be kind of overkill since it would more than likely just be linking to the RfC(s) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail, and the latter already has clear links to each of the RfCs. There really isn't any good reason to essentially duplicate the existing page on a shortcut. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. The existing target causes confusion by linking to a point in time rather than the current consensus, which includes that point in time but also other valuable context. If you want to reference the status of the Mail, which is the most likely ongoing use, then RSP is the place to go. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the note at the top of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC not sufficient? Is there any further context I should add? Again, a boatload of people have posted comments about the RfC using the existing Wikilink. Changing the link makes every one of those comments link to something that the author of the comment did not intend to link to. Is someone planning on fixing all 621[2] links? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guy Macon and JzG: I mean, 621 isn't even that bad, we handled 50,000 bad redirects during the Neelix incident. If consensus says we need to go through and retarget every single usage referring to the RfC specifically (which is probably only a few hundred of those 621 anyway), then so be it. I could probably do it in a couple hours at most. But with how often the Daily Mail is coming up in discussions nowadays, I think retargeting this shortcut is pretty important for the reasons that I've stated above. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the consensus ends up being to retarget, count me in for fixing a couple of hundred links. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. A WP: shortcut to a disucssion archive is confusing and there's no way to immediately tell whether the outcome is still effective. Retargeting to RSP not only helps that but also gives context as to what it means for a source to be "deprecated". Nardog (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Since the last redirect discussion, a third Daily Mail RfC has taken place, and the result of this new RfC slightly altered how the community interprets the consensus in the first two. It would not take long to retarget the links to the old RfC using AWB or JWB, and I can help out as well. — Newslinger talk 00:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Added "how the community interprets" for clarity. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. The actual RfC, which Newslinger referenced improperly, was "RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary". The closer excluded the idea that this was a change that affects WP:DAILYMAIL. Notice how useful it is to be able to look there at what the closer actually said, instead of interpretations like Newslinger's. But that is why it is a bad idea to refer to anybody-can-fiddle-it stuff in an essay-class page, instead of the actual RfC result. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 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 Keep those with "ranking", delete the rest. There appears to be a weak consensus that presidential rankings are primarily associated with the US and that those redirects should be kept in the absence of any other president-ranking article on Wikipedia. There is a strong consensus to delete the other redirects that do not mention rankings. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Best president → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Presidential rankings → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Presidential reputation → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• President rankings → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ranking presidents → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Top presidents → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Good presidents → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Bad presidents → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Presidential ranking → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Presidential Rankings → Historical rankings of presidents of the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Considering that President is a dab page, I don't see why these should target to a US-centric page. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not all tagged yet. It's too late where I am to deal with that all tonight, I'll do it tomorrow if I remember. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No other plausible targets for the redirects has been proposed. President is a dab page rather than a redirect because there are existing articles for many different types of presidents. But there are currently no "rankings of presidents" article for any country other than the United States, so the redirects are convenient shortcuts for plausible search terms without any conflicting targets. —Lowellian (reply) 05:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't be US-centric. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirects don't go there because of US-centrism. Other countries also have presidents, but no other country has a presidential ranking article. If such conflicting articles existed, then dab pages would be appropriate, but in the absence of other such articles, there are no other plausible targets. —Lowellian (reply) 19:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator - there are many presidents, not just US presidents. We have presidents of companies, presidents of other nations that is not America. We need to think about broadening the topic a bit, and because there are no plausible targets for these titles, we should delete this. Aasim 06:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A reader searching for these terms isn't necessarily searching for information about US presidents, as numerous other countries also have presidents. Not a very active user (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "ranking" ones per J947's research below, as it seems that US is currently the only country with presidential rankings. Delete the "reputation", "good", "bad", "top" and "best" ones, as I still think that they are ambiguous. Not a very active user (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:GLOBAL. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all that use "ranking" or similar. As far as I'm aware, this is the only presidential ranking list, so it should target the U.S. by default. If other lists were to develop, then a list of lists can be written for these to redirect to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't be US-centric. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soumya-8974: It is not US-centric to redirect something to the only relevant list. Are there other non-American presidential ranking lists on Wikipedia that I'm unaware of? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. The deletion and creation of redirects are cheap. If we have similar rankings, then we can re-create them as dab pages. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least some per Tavix. There are two choices here: help the readers mostly but run the risk of misdirecting them or don't help them that much at all. I had to run down to number 29 on a Google search to find some entry not relating to US presidents – and these results are not tailored to the US based on recognising location; I live in New Zealand. We do not want to be US-centric; we want to portray the use of the terms appropriately – and discussion of presidential rankings is absolutely centric to the US. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for being subjective and/or unnecessarily America-biased. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Even if no other articles currently exist for historical rankings of presidents of other countries, it seems likely that at some point they will so these redirects are best dealt with now while someone has noticed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some. I agree with Not a very active user's rationale.―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 02:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you are opining that readers should be deprived of the strong chance they have of being helped find the article they were looking for because in the future other presidential rankings articles may be made? Why not just keep the redirect around for now, helping our readers? – and if another presidential ranking article is created, just make the redirect into a disambiguation page. Why not just do that? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to make another comment. Would it be possible to modify the current redirects to "Top US Presidents," "Best US Presidents" etc. or something similar?--NK1406 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best to simply make a new redirect for this purpose – that is, if it hasn't been created already (this page shows the current redirects to the target article). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know that page existed, so thank you! I see that several similar redirects do in fact exist, so I agree with you on that. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 01:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the "ranking" ones and delete others, as "presidential rankings" exist on Wikipedia only in the US context. feminist (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the ranking ones per Tavix and others above. Delete the rest. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lirean war → Encantadia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• War of the four Gems → Encantadia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A quick search on Google instead redirected me "to correct search term" - Korean War, meaning it has no notability context O/S Encantadia sphere. For War of the four Gems, there's no mention of it O/S Encantadia sphere. Both are also per @Narutolovehinata5:'s insight on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Encantadian War. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment War of the four Gems nomination merged here from 4 Aug. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for merging @Shhhnotsoloud:. It seems that Twinkle doesn't support multi-additions for "Redirects for discussion" (I mean, adding discussions to two or more redirects at one and the same time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @JWilz12345: Use Twinkle to nominate the one with the narrative; then use Twinkle to nominate the 2nd, this time with a blank narrative; then edit the RfD page to remove the intermediate signature and header, and voila! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – both of these terms are mentioned at the target article, so the redirect seems appropriate. Subjects don't need to be notable to get a redirect (in fact, generally they must not be notable, as otherwise they would get an article), a simple mention is usually enough. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rosguill. Given the position of keys on a standard keyboard, it's not strange that Google might suggest "Korean War" for "Lirean war", but that should have little bearing here (cf. WP:RTYPO). --BDD (talk) 17:42, 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 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kasai rex → List of cryptids  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Supposedly a "dinosaur" someone saw in Africa in the 1930s. I don't see a home for this here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this is a thing, enwiki has nothing about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If Kasai Rex was listed in the list of cryptids I would say keep but it is not. It should also be said that an article for Kasai Rex was deleted back in 2016 on the basis that no reliable sources were found even suggesting the possibility of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 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.