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 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentlemen (upcoming film) → The Gentlemen (2019 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bush (upcoming film) → The Gentlemen (2019 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since they films are no longer upcoming, these redirects become potentially misleading. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes me wonder if we ought to have a speedy delete category for "Foo (upcoming baa)" titles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:12, 15 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Economic Corridor Digital Innovation Zone → Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Eastern Economic Corridor Innovation Zone → PTT Public Company Limited (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Economic Corridor Comprehensive Healthcare Industry Zone → Thammasat University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Economic Corridor Medical Genomics Industry Zone → Burapha University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These search terms are not currently mentioned at their targets. While it's plausible that these topics could be related, an internet search would suggest that the Eastern Economic zones are independently notable of the current redirect targets, and I would thus suggest deletion to encourage article creation. It is not clear to me whether the various Zones are independently notable of each other. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These entities are more related to the EEC and less to the individual organisations which serve as the facilitators of the projects, and should be covered at the main Eastern Economic Corridor article. They're currently only linked to from a table in that article. Self-redirects aren't useful. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loving J. → Loving Jezebel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 10 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loving Joy → Lovejoy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. My top internet search results for this term are a line of vibrators. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 10 January 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 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Pukel land → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Old Púkel land → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target article. In Middle-earth, the Pukels are a name for the Druedain and their sculptures, but "Old Pukel land" is not mentioned at that potential target, either. Hog Farm (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are far too many useless redirects related to Tolkien. No reason to have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 15 January 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 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwathir → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Not to be confused with Gwaihir, the name of a Middle-earth eagle, this one is an obscure river. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned at target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 15 January 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 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emyn Beraid → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mentioned twice on the English Wikipedia, once as an outgoing link on at Outline of Middle-earth and a brief, unexplanatory at Gildor Inglorion. Not mentioned at the target page, and no clear retarget option. Hog Farm (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unneeded redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 15 January 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 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fault(geology) → Fault (geology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 20 § Fault(geology) – no consensus

Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per current consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per current consensus. Hog Farm (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GeoWriter (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: For the record, prior to me making this nomination, I noticed that the previous discussion stated that this redirect had pageviews. After reading that, I also noticed that this redirect had incoming links in the article namespace in WP:PIPE-d links. At this point, those links have bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary clutter, a pure typo. Of course it has had views, readers have been presented with two near-identical links in the searchbox. I also cite WP:UNHELPFUL. Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the appearance in the searchbox is a temporary artifact of this page NOT being a redirect while this nomination is active; while it was a redirect it did not appear in the searchbox unless typed exactly incorrectly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. Wily D 13:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion involving whether a rationale has been presented for deletion -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD: In case you missed it, the rationale for deletion was presented as follows: Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB.. You may disagree with the rationale, but your statement that there is none is blatantly incorrect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] You appear to be mistaken. That's a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a rationale for deletion were presented, then I could agree or disagree with it. But without a reason for deletion, whether the underlying logic is sensible or not, I can't agree or disagree with it. Wily D 16:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @WilyD: Your opinion that the rationale is a non sequitur does not make the rationale non-existent. It is Steel1943's opinion that the redirect should be deleted for that reason—which objectively makes it a rationale for deletion. If you think the redirect should be kept, you would be wise to explain why you feel that Steel1943's rationale for deletion is incorrect, but to say there is not one is false. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] No, this is wrong. If a rationale for deletion had been presented, I could explain why I thought it was wrong, or why I thought some other rationale was stronger, or I could be persuaded by it (or, whatnot). But I can't do that here, because there's no rationale that's been presented with which one could agree or disagree. A rationale is a reason or justification for something. Something that doesn't contain a reason, justification, or the like is not a rationale. Wily D 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @WilyD: There is a rationale for deletion. It is, in short, WP:RDAB. You must be of the opinion that WP:RDAB is not a valid rationale for deletion, but that is not the same as there not being one at all. Since a rationale for deletion has been provided, WP:RDAB, you are more than welcome to explain why you think WP:RDAB is incorrect. For no rationale has been presented for deletion to be accurate, the nomination must be posted with zero explanation whatsoever, which is not the situation here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] No, this is flatly incorrect. WP:RDAB doesn't provide a rationale for deletion, valid, invalid, or otherwise. I can't say why it's correct or incorrect, because it's neither of those. The nominating statement also has a timestamp, but I can neither agree nor disagree with that as a rationale for deletion, because it's not one. Wily D 06:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion involving whether a rationale has been presented for deletion -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: In case you missed it, the rationale for deletion was presented as follows: Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB.. You may disagree with the rationale, but your statement that there is none is blatantly incorrect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be mistaken. That's a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a rationale for deletion were presented, then I could agree or disagree with it. But without a reason for deletion, whether the underlying logic is sensible or not, I can't agree or disagree with it. Wily D 16:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: Your opinion that the rationale is a non sequitur does not make the rationale non-existent. It is Steel1943's opinion that the redirect should be deleted for that reason—which objectively makes it a rationale for deletion. If you think the redirect should be kept, you would be wise to explain why you feel that Steel1943's rationale for deletion is incorrect, but to say there is not one is false. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is wrong. *If* a rationale for deletion had been presented, I could explain why I thought it was wrong, or why I thought some other rationale was stronger, or I could be persuaded by it (or, whatnot). But I can't do that here, because there's no rationale that's been presented with which one could agree or disagree. A rationale is a reason or justification for something. Something that doesn't contain a reason, justification, or the like is not a rationale. Wily D 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: There is a rationale for deletion. It is, in short, WP:RDAB. You must be of the opinion that WP:RDAB is not a valid rationale for deletion, but that is not the same as there not being one at all. Since a rationale for deletion has been provided, WP:RDAB, you are more than welcome to explain why you think WP:RDAB is incorrect. For no rationale has been presented for deletion to be accurate, the nomination must be posted with zero explanation whatsoever, which is not the situation here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is flatly incorrect. WP:RDAB doesn't provide a rationale for deletion, valid, invalid, or otherwise. I can't say why it's correct or incorrect, because it's neither of those. The nominating statement also has a timestamp, but I can neither agree nor disagree with that as a rationale for deletion, because it's not one. Wily D 06:43, 15 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denethor I → Gondor#Government (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Denethor I is not mentioned at the target article. Not to be confused with the more imporant Denethor II. Hog Farm (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the other Stewards who redirect there are also not mentioned in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:39B4:5087:F9E6:41C (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:5D34:D667:6E77:25CA (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not mentioned in the article. We have to start paring back these unneeded redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 15 January 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 delete. Redirect speedily deleted by Missvain per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traps Are Gay → Transmisogyny (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of this phrase at the target article (see Know Your Meme for context). I can't think of any other article where it would make sense to retarget this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 10 January 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 delete and creation protected by PhilKnight. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sanitarium → Rick Santorum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This nickname is not mentioned in any reliable sources and it is not discussed at the target article. Compare to other derogatory nicknames for politicians—such as Crooked Hillary or Snowflake-in-Chief—whose usage has been noted in independent sources and that are actually mentioned in their target articles. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect has been speedy deleted twice in the past, and one of those times was for WP:G10. I'm going to tag this redirect with ((Db-g10)), but even if that gets denied, I recommend that this title get WP:SALT after/if it is deleted, especially considering that the same editor has created this redirect at least twice now. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted the redirect as an attack page and salted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 10 January 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 Astrologaster (video game) to Astrologaster. Swapping makes no sense because redirecting Astrologaster (video game) to Astrology is a nonstarter. wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astrologaster → Astrology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target page. I looked at this after stub-sorting Astrologaster (video game); added hatnote at Astrology as that's where this points, but can't find the term in the article. Is is just a synonym for "astrologer"? PamD 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, an astrologaster is "a foolish or petty astrologer". The word is so obscure that IMO the well-sourced video game is WP:PTOPIC. Swap Astrologaster (video game) and Astrologaster per WP:PRECISE. Narky Blert (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and swap per Narky Blert. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 18 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glanhir → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Glanhír → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target article. Hog Farm (talk) 16:30, 10 January 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 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom → Insurance in the United Kingdom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete Extremely long title that as a result is a very unlikely search target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remnant of a 2008 page move to a more appropriate title. Barkeep^Chat 16:42, 10 January 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. As the other three companies were not actually listed with a tag and were not clearly discussed by all participants, I'm going to ask that those be formally nominated in a new discussion rather than acting on them now. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lillies Bordello → List of companies of Ireland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The term is not mentioned in the target article, and, as far as I can tell, never has been. John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't be surprised if it never has been mentioned - a bordello is a brothel. Note that the creator, User:Rd809, was WP:INDEFfed in 2009 as a WP:SOCK.

Three other redirects were created by Rd809 within minutes of the one under discussion, and I suggest that they be bundled in here. None is mentioned in the target article:

Taboo Navan. This could be Taboo Nightclub, http://www.taboo.ie/^{[dead link]}, Navan, County Meath

Nass Court Hotel. Possibly Naas Court Hotel?

Bourjoi. No idea

Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Easter Eggs that only seem to serve the purpose of avoiding redlinks on a single article (of questionable long-term relevance). That redlinking problem is more easily and appropriately resolved by simply removing the links from that article. Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those links were all added by Rd809 in this diff and were unsourced (as was the whole article at the time). IMO the veracity of that edit is in doubt. Narky Blert (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but there probably should be an article at that name - Lillies Bordello (often just Lillies) was one of the most famous nightclubs in Ireland for 20-something years, with significant news coverage, and both local (incl. U2) and international celebrity visibility. While not a topic for the ages, it was (it closed in 2019) certainly notable enough for an article. But this redirect is rubbish.SeoR (talk) 09:17, 14 January 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 Dave Bartholomew. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl King (songwriter) → Earl King (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed nomination (nominator created an empty section on the RFD log page but didn't use ((rfd2))). Nominator also left a comment at Talk:Pearl King (songwriter). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Bartholomew. The nominator is quite correct. Pearl King was the name of Bartholomew's wife, and was sometimes listed as a co-writer on Bartholomew's songs. She is not WP:NOTABLE in her own right. And she is definitely not the quite separate musician Earl King - although other sources, outside this one, have sometimes got this wrong in the past and caused confusion (including, I'm sorry to say, me in this old edit, now corrected). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Bartholomew per Ghmyrtle's convincing argument. Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 11 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forsaken Inn → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bridge Inn (Middle-earth) → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These inns are not discussed in any meaningful way in the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're not discussed in any meaningful way even in Tolkien. Fancruft trivia. Contrast The Prancing Pony, which is a perfectly good redirect to relevant information. Narky Blert (talk) 23:56, 10 January 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 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ascar (Middle-earth) → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Ascar" is not mentioned in a Middle-earth sense in the English Wikipedia, so a redirect for this with (Middle-earth) on the end is worthless. Delete as obscure fancruft. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 10 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrath → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target article. Mentioned at Misty Mountains as part of the place name "Cirith Forn en Andrath" but I don't think Andrath would be a logical search term even for that. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 10 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amon Uilos → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Bay of Fäery → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:33, 10 January 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 30,000. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

32768 → 30,000 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

32768 (number) → 30,000 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
32,768 → Time formatting and storage bugs#Years 32,768 and 65,536 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to 30,000 as the redirect from this number seems to be less useful between number and computer and science, I will suggest retarget to 30,000 per WP:NUMBER. 14.207.205.207 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 30,000 per WP:NUMBER, as the redirect from 32768 and 32768 (number) exists. Also, these redirects should target to the same article. 14.207.205.207 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This IP address is the same as the one that made the nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Targets of other powers of two from 2¹¹ up to 2³² — 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2048 (number) redirects to 2000 (number); 2048 is about the year, and 2,048 doesn't exist 4096 (number) points to 4000 (number); 4096 and 4,096 do not exist 8192 (number) is its own page, to which 8192 and 8,192 redirect 16384, 16,384, and 16384 (number) do not exist 65536 is its own page, to which 65,536 and 65536 (number) point 131072, 131,072, and 131072 (number) don't exist 262144 points to 100000; 262,144 and 262144 (number) don't exist 524288, 524288 (number), and 524,288 don't exist 1048576 and 1048576 (number) point to powers of two; 1,048,576 doesn't exist 2097152, 4194304, and 8388608 (and their comma'd/(number)'ed forms) don't exist 16777216, 16777216 (number), and 16,777,216 point to 10,000,000 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824, 2147483648 (and similar) don't exist 4294967296, 4294967296 (number), and 4,294,967,296 all point to different targets: powers of two, orders of magnitude (numbers), and orders of magnitude (data)

Targets of other powers of two from 2¹¹ up to 2³² — 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- 2048 (number) redirects to 2000 (number); 2048 is about the year, and 2,048 doesn't exist
- 4096 (number) points to 4000 (number); 4096 and 4,096 do not exist
- 8192 (number) is its own page, to which 8192 and 8,192 redirect
- 16384, 16,384, and 16384 (number) do not exist
- 65536 is its own page, to which 65,536 and 65536 (number) point
- 131072, 131,072, and 131072 (number) don't exist
- 262144 points to 100000; 262,144 and 262144 (number) don't exist
- 524288, 524288 (number), and 524,288 don't exist
- 1048576 and 1048576 (number) point to powers of two; 1,048,576 doesn't exist
- 2097152, 4194304, and 8388608 (and their comma'd/(number)'ed forms) don't exist
- 16777216, 16777216 (number), and 16,777,216 point to 10,000,000
- 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824, 2147483648 (and similar) don't exist
- 4294967296, 4294967296 (number), and 4,294,967,296 all point to different targets: powers of two, orders of magnitude (numbers), and orders of magnitude (data)

Comment: Of course 32,768, 32768 and 32768 (number) should have the same target, and of course it should not be 30000, this is enwiki, not TikTok. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 30,000, or maybe Power of two. 14.207.202.253 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lithlad → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Targeted to Middle-earth but the only time it's mentioned is exactly once at Mordor. I don't see a reason to have a redirect for something that's mentioned exactly once. Hog Farm (talk) 02:49, 10 January 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 00:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Bight → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target article. A Middle-earth redirect whose Middle-earth meaning does not seem to be discussed anywhere. Potentially a confusing redirect since "East Bight" could be a real place. Hog Farm (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. East Bight is a deforested area of Mirkwood, not mentioned in that article. East Bight is also a street in Lincoln, England (average house price £420k). Narky Blert (talk) 13:40, 10 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emyn Uial → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This name is mentioned exactly once in the entire Wikipedia. Not mentioned at target article and unlikely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 10 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limlight → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Limliht → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Limlîht → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think this ought to be deleted. By using the searchbar and adding a * to the front to bring up all instances of Limlight, I found two references at Rohan (Middle-earth), one at Fangorn, one at Misty Mountains, and one at Rhovanion. All of these references are brief mentions, usually as either a reference to the river serving as the boundary line to a region, or as the river being listed in a list of tributaries. With no actual description of this river around and brief, approximately equivalent references at four different places, I don't think there's any content to redirect to or a clear target. Also nominating Limlîht and Limliht as alternative spellings mentioned literally nowhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because "Limlight" is a plausible misspelling of Limelight to boot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 18 January 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.

January 10

The Gentlemen (upcoming film)

Eastern Economic Corridor Digital Innovation Zone

Loving J.

Loving Joy

Old Pukel land

Gwathir

East Emnet

Emyn Beraid

Fault(geology)

Denethor I

Rotten eggs

Traps Are Gay

Rick Sanitarium

Astrologaster

Glanhir

Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom

Lillies Bordello

Pearl King (songwriter)

Middle-earth Inns

Ascar (Middle-earth)

Andrath

These redirects are not discussed anywhere

32,768

Lithlad

West Emnet

East Bight

Emyn Uial

Limlight

Kibil-nala