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) 15:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unhelpful redirect, not listed on dab page. Search does a better job since it could also be a typo for Permyak, Permyaki, or Permyriad. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like Permi Google returns several definitions such as property ownership and a permanent friend. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictionary shows it to be a shortened version of "per tout et non per my" which doesn't have an article here. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a search tearm which points unambiguously to a single item, and it is also not helpful to let it point to the dab page. --Cyfal (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only mention of anything called Permy (where it is not just part of a name such as "Permy Mall") is Made with Code#GIF, but it's just a name in a list and there's no reference. Peter James (talk) 10:19, 13 December 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 Persatuan Muslim Indonesia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not listed at the dab page or explained at the former article that used to be there: Perm, Russia. I find this redirect much more confusing than useful. (Could also be a typo for permit, permie, Permic, Permia, Permin, or Permian.) (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible, many dictionary definitions come up and the Wikitictionary article wiktionary:permi so lets just delete and let search work. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Persatuan Muslim Indonesia per Peter. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wiktionary points to non-English terms, none of which have primary topic over this. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a search tearm which points unambiguously to a single item, and it is also not helpful to let it point to the dab page. --Cyfal (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Persatuan Muslim Indonesia, "also abbreviated as PERMI" in its article, and referred to as "Permi" in Z.A. Ahmad (Indonesian politician) and Ganting Grand Mosque articles. Peter James (talk) 10:02, 13 December 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) 16:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Vault (2019 film) → Vault (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. We have only one "The Vault (film)" which was released in 2017, and the film released in 2019 is just called "Vault", so the 2019 film shouldn't be called "The Vault". Also, no film was released under the name "The Vault" in the same year. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: It appears that I created that redirect at around the same time that I noticed a WP:RMTR request to move The Vault (2017 film) to The Vault (film). Noticing that I agreed with that request, I also moved Vault (2019 film) to Vault (film) and tidied up the dab pages at Vault and The Vault and tidied up the hatnotes in the two articles. I don't have a clear recollection of why I created that redirect. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete search clutter, ambiguous (t · c) buidhe 21:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. The 2 films at their correct titles have hatnotes to each other. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 13 December 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. Perhaps close to no consensus, though the outcome would be the same. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Tiberius Gracchus) → Tiberius Gracchus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Gracchus) → Tiberius Gracchus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Lucullus) → Claudia gens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Rex) → Quintus Marcius Rex (consul 68 BC)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all. The surname 'Pulchra' is incorrect and none of the redirects link anywhere. 'Tiberius Gracchus' itself already has many redirects, see WP:COSTLY. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to delete. These look like implausible OR to me, unless I'm missing something. PS: I see at Tiberius Gracchus a claim that his wife actually used "Claudia Pulchra" but this looks dubious. Looking around on teh interwebs, I see a lot of wiki/blog/forum crap, which is probably just parroting our own questionable material. The cited sources are Plutarch, who only says "Claudia", and a modern book which is explicitly only being cited for another name in that sentence ("Antistius").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claudia Pulchra (wife of Lucullus) and Claudia Pulchra (wife of Rex) since those are both plausible search terms for the wives of those two men.★Trekker (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither fulfills notability standards, whence they're redirects and not actual articles. No page, not notable, wrong name, what is exactly the rationale for keeping them? Avilich (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a redirect should exist is not determined by the notability of the subject—much less whether a stand-alone article has been written about the subject, which is not the same thing as notability. It's entirely possible that enough scholarship exists to justify such articles, even if none has yet been written; but even if there isn't, readers might use these terms to search for any information that's known about them. The fact that we don't have much doesn't mean they shouldn't be directed to the articles most likely to contain relevant details. Many perfectly good redirects target information contained in articles about other topics that just happen to include the most substantial or relevant discussion of the topics for which the redirects were created. In a few instances, that discussion has since been deleted, resulting in phantom redirects, the purpose of which is not apparent from the articles to which they lead; but that's not likely to be the case here. The purpose of a redirect is to lead readers to the information identified by the title of the redirect, wherever it might be instead of at that title. These redirects fulfill that purpose, and I see no evidence that deleting them would benefit readers. P Aculeius (talk) (time stamp lost, probably 4 December).

• Keep all as plausible search terms. While this form wasn't usual at the time these women lived, it wasn't unheard of, and it appears in modern literature. The fact that Wikipedians have contributed at times to the uncertainty doesn't make them implausible. I don't see anything in the essay "Redirects are costly" that would apply to these particular redirects; "Redirects are cheap" seems more applicable here (and just to be clear, neither one is policy). P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per P Aculeius. For use of this spelling by an authority, see Claudia.13 in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Claudia Pulchra is an attested name during the Empire, but not the Republic. I suppose it comes from Colleen McCullough's books, which many unexperienced editors thought they are reliable sources and corrupted Wikipedia as a result. I'm nevertheless inclined to keep them, because apparently Wikipedia has created confusion on the web and these may be relevant search terms. T8612 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only correct Claudia Pulchra is the wife of P. Quinctilius Varus; the rest did not have a surname. They will remain 'plausible' search terms as long as the error is allowed to persist. Avilich (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. While it wasn't usual for Roman women to use the combination of "nomen + cognomen", it wasn't unheard of, and there was no law or custom preventing it. In a family as large as the Claudii, it's quite likely that this designation was used quite regularly in speech, even if few examples are preserved in writing. I doubt very highly that Colleen McCullough is the first person to use the combination to refer to women of earlier periods. While we may not find it regularly in Roman sources, I think it's likely to turn up in modern scholarship, and it would be neither improper nor inaccurate by Roman custom. And because many people are aware of the collocation, it's a likely search term, no matter where they picked it up. P Aculeius (talk) 16:05, 12 December 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 withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Master (2020 film) → Master (upcoming Indian film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a 2020 film. Besides, all incoming links are fixed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, given that the previous discussion was closed barely a few days ago. Nominator's rationale is also the same as the previous one, failing to provide sufficient reasons for deleting this redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. @Kailash29792: Did you notice that you nominated this redirect last week? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Did I? I don't remember since the page did not get added to my watchlist and I don't have a log for redirect deletion nominations; only CSDs. I'll remember this, so please close. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 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. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Messianic judiasm → Messianic Judaism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Secular Judiasm → Jewish secularism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Shiva (Judiasm) → Shiva (Judaism)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Names of God in Judiasm → Names of God in Judaism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The following are all the redirects on wiki that include the misspelled word "Judiasm" in them (instead of the correct "Judaism"). It is highly redundant to use such a rare spelling error for a few random pages; furthermore, the typo possibilities are endless and this opens a door to many more such redirects. (It is however acceptable to keep the single misspelled word Judiasm redirecting to Judaism, as it generates a lot of traffic - for reference, the misspelled word "Christanity" refers to Christianity, but is not used on any other redirect). I suggest to delete all four. Bezrat (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all From personal experience, the Judiasm swap is very common. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - a simple pageview stats test shows three of these redirects had 0 views in the entire month preceding the proposal, and the other had 1. It is not common to type these search terms and make this typo, and these redirects have no pages linking to them within Wikipedia obviously. Only the standalone Judiasm redirect can be useful and should stay. Bezrat (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the shiva one, keep the others It's a plausible typo, but it's unlikely someone would be searching directly for the disambiguation page in a way that the correct one wouldn't come up. Smartyllama (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as plausible typos. People misspell stuff all the time, and from my experience a large number English-speakers can't even pronounce the [properly spelled] word correctly (e.g., they say "Judy-ism"), so there's clearly confusion about its orthography.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 4 December 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 17:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Metellus) → Clodia (wife of Metellus)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer) → Clodia (wife of Metellus)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Claudia Quarta → Clodia (wife of Metellus)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should all be deleted since the person in question never used the surname 'Pulchra', and no page links to them. This page also currently has 6 redirects, and can do with less (WP:COSTLY). Avilich (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to delete. These look like implausible OR to me, unless I'm missing something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as plausible search terms. As explained in the December 4 discussion, these aren't really what the essay "costly" is about. These particular forms may be slightly anachronistic, but it's far from unlikely that they might be encountered in classical literature, and they are certainly found in modern scholarship. I don't see any of them creating problems for readers, as long as they redirect to the correct targets. "Costly" is about implausible spellings, improbably substituted characters, malformed disambiguation, etc. Not confusion about terminology—that's what justifies redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the third one, though it links directly to Clodia (wife of Metellus), Template:Family of Clodius lists her as Claudia Quarta. If it's a suitable name for a family tree, I don't see why it wouldn't be suitable for a redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 December 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) 16:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Latin numbers: 1-10 → wiktionary:Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible title for an xwiki redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not an appropriate Wiktionary redirect per WP:SOFTSP and Template:Wiktionary redirect/doc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a likely title to be searched. --Phainh (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a suitable soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Latin numerals as the target mentions Latin cardinal numbers. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was procedural close - there is currently an article at this title so it is out of scope for RfD. If anyone thinks the article should be deleted then it can be nominated at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft Office 2022 → Microsoft Office  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Microsoft Office 2022 is not, in anyway was announced yet by Microsoft, nor it currently exists yet (it is only a rumor). SMB99thx my edits! 00:05, 11 December 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) 16:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If only (Arminian TV series) → If Only (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion : Arminian relates to Arminianism, Here this is Armenian TV, related to Armenia ---Telikalive (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the only page title on Wikipedia that contains this misspelling for "Armenian", all other examples are properly spelled articles on the religious concept. That suggests that the misspelling is not a common error to make. To avoid confusion, it should simply be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This misspelling is confusing. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect with 2 errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 13 December 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.