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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:LTA/Olha → nl:Wikipedia:Checklijst langdurig structureel vandalisme/Olha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure this person is a LTA on the English Wikipedia and should likely be moved to either Meta if its not active in the English Wikipedia or moved he if the person is active as its English page on the Dutch Wikipedia I do not know dutch at all so i would be unable to ask the Dutch Wikipedia for permission to move to here or to meta even through its in English 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't appear to be a LTA case for this user. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Full. No need for a cross-wiki redirect. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not useful to the English Wikipedia to have a redirect to an LTA page on the Dutch Wikipedia. If the user is a long term abuser here, they should have an LTA page here, if they aren't they shouldn't. This is without prejudice to any moves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 24 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Assocation Press → Associated Press  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

delete, because that misspelling is extremely unlikely. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; absolutely harmless and as a surprisingly common misnomer. I don't see the need to delete this redirect. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. Very common incorrect title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this redirect. It was 13 years ago and I no longer recall the circumstances, but I presume I saw a need for it and I don't see the harm in keeping it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947's findings. This is clearly a plausible error. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have actually seen a newspaper with this typo so it is plausible also the links that User:J947 was helpful in proving that it is plausible 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:28, 25 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 speedily deleted by Fastily per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Island Huxley novel → Island (Huxley novel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:COSTLY/WP:RDAB; not a useful variation to link from, and it doesn't aid searching any more than the correct title. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per { {db-G7)) or equivalent - as OA of the RD page, deleting page is ok with me - no problem whatsoever - thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:14, 24 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Death of Amir Tehkal → Amir Tehkal torture case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page was written as biography of a non-notable person which was moved by some editor to Death of Amir Tehkal, however it was just a torture case and he is alive. The page was moved, so this redirect makes no sense. USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there's nothing about Amir Tehkal's death in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:17, 26 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7, the typo-free redirect Unbelievable (24kGoldn song) has already been created. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbelievable (24kGoldn son → 24kGoldn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Speedy deletion needed. Didn't realize the typos I made. AshMusique (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just move the redirect to the correct spelling yourself? the ultraUsurper 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AshMusique: for future reference, if you want a page that only you have contributed to speedily deleted (e.g. because you made a typo) then you can just place the ((G7)) template on the page and an admin will delete it for you. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 24 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bharosa (TV series) → Bharosa Pyar Tera  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely that someone would look for the series under this title, because there is no evidence that it is ever referred to simply as "Bharosa" M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a very well used ((R from move)). The edit summary associated with the move suggests that the title was anticipated to be just "Bharosa". Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you describe it as well used, let's take a look at what links to it:

  • • Various deletion logs, since, you know, it's at RfD
    • The talk pages of the creating users
    • NPP and AfC-related logs: User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed articles by keyword, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 18, [[

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2019-03]]

• • • • Note that these pages relate directly to the redirect itself, not the target page
    • The talk pages of the redirect and the target page

  I don't think any of these cause the redirect to merit inclusion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That shows only links from current revisions of pages on en.wp, so it is not a complete indicator of utility. The reasons for keeping this redirect are both the standard reasons for ((R from move)) redirects and the 60-70 hits a month it is getting. The latter suggests that it is linked from somewhere other than Wikipedia, so if the redirect is deleted the people using the redirect will be presented with a message saying we don't have an article and (depending on various factors) would they like to search for other articles and/or create a new article. This may lead to the creation of a duplicate article (which we don't want) and is definitely unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  M Imtiaz, it may pay to take a look at the guidelines surrounding RfD. These include sentences like Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping and Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it should be deleted just for that reason; I was countering the claim that it is "well used". M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M Imtiaz: 60-70 hits every month is a very well used redirect. What J947 and I are trying to explain is that whatlinkshere is not, on its own, a reliable indicator of use. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf; K4 applies. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like an unambiguous WP:PTM to me. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 24 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Smasung galaxy s2 → Samsung Galaxy S II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect, and there isn't a "Smasung galaxy s3" etc. the ultraUsurper 08:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Plausible redirect since "s2" is an Arabic numeral transcription of "S II". --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soumya-8974: "s2" isn't the problem, "Smasung" is. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't have or need the redirect Smasung, and we need this one still less. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, I think "Smasung" should be created as a plausible misspelling of Samsung. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 16:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; harmless, this specific string is a used misnomer, no need to delete. This redirect has managed fair pageviews somehow – I don't know how it has got them exactly, but it shows signs that an old link or two points to this redirect and shouldn't be broken. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - [1] Reasonable pageviews last year. This isn't hurting anything, and is historical enough that it's likely that old links (including external) may be in play. It's a simple transposition. I wouldn't recommend creating this if it didn't exist, but I don't see a good reason to delete it. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Samsung galaxy s2 already exists since 2011. No point in pushing Smasung. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @J947: @Hog Farm: Many redirects are deleted despite having a lot of pageviews, and just because it is getting viewed a lot doesn't mean we should push "Smasung" as Samsung galaxy s2 aready exists, per AngusWOOF. the ultraUsurper 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? That doesn't mean it is the correct course of action. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • J947 i wouldn't have nominated this if it weren't for fact that the redirect Smasung doesn't exist. This is also misleading to the reader as the correct spelling is Samsung. We shouldn't push incorrect redirects just because they are "harmless". What is to be gained by keeping this misleading redirect? ^{the ultraUsurper} 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) What does it matter that the user misspelled Samsung? The user got where they wanted to go and if we do care about the spelling, right on the first screen there are 12 instances of the word Samsung – which should rub it in. I seriously doubt an elitist attitude to typing is a better way to go than simply directing the reader to their wanted article. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        J947, you are asking every time, "What is to be gained by deleting this redirect?" whenever a user nominates a redirect to be deleted. I am now asking you, what is to be gained by keeping this redirect? Do you want to close the entire RfD programme because of your philosophy? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        These redirects are better than nothing. I certainly do believe that the RfD process is helpful. Plenty of redirects deserve to be retargeted, disambiguated, or deleted altogether. I just don't see why "unlikely" should be used as a rationale for deleting, especially when RHARMFUL – a guideline – explicitly argues against such a practice. I have found that saying What is to be gained by deleting this redirect? is a good way to get the point across, effectively being a rephrase of this passage from RGUIDE: In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        That's exactly what i'm saying. It doesn't matter whether or not anything is gained from deleting incorrect redirects. Even if the user misspelled Samsung, WP will still suggest the correct spelling, so such redirects aren't needed. ^{the ultraUsurper} 09:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        It feels snarky to say it, but note that the editor above has been blocked for many reasons, including disruptive RfD nominations. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:50, 26 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 Round robin w/1C (disambiguation). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 1C → 1C Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to 1C (disambiguation). There are 10 other articles about something called 1C, no evidence that the company is the one that people will be looking for Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1062#How to address suspicious edits? (27 May 2020). Round-robin swap 1C and 1C (disambiguation) per WP:MALPLACED. Narky Blert (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and Narky Blert. the ultraUsurper 08:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Robin per above. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Round robin swap per Narky Blert and nom. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Round-robin swap with 1C (disambiguation) per above. To be fair, the company "appear[ed] to be the primary topic" back in 2010, but I'm not sure this is still the case ten years later, since this term could also refer to these other articles the nom alludes to. Regards, SONIC678 18:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the other topics listed on the DAB that could compete with the company on pageviews, namely Cup (unit) and Cent (currency), are partial matches that are very unlikely to be searched for using "1C". Also, the tree of "per X" given above seems to be based on almost nothing. Several refer to Narky Blert, who in turn references WP:MALPLACED, which just describes DAB pages that were perhaps named wrong to begin with but provides no argument for the company not being primary here, and this Teahouse thread which only questions whether the company is primary with no argument for why it wouldn't be. Could the others who voted here provide actual reasons per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the company isn't primary, rather than "per above"? I'm not saying there's no argument for it, just that I think more explanation would be helpful. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Please read what I wrote, and WP:MALPLACED. This discussion is about whether or not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT meaning of 1C is or is not 1C (company). If the consensus is that it is, nothing more need be done; if it is that it is not, a technical error will need to be corrected.

  Pageviews mean less than nothing in a case like this. Of course the company gets more pageviews than any of the other topics - any reader who types 1C into the searchbox and hits Enter finds themself looking at IC (company), no matter what they were actually looking for! Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're agreed that it's simply a primary topic discussion, but yeah, for some reason I failed to take into account that the company has been the de facto primary up until now and would thus get all the page views. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment. These were the maintenance tags on 1C Company when this discussion was opened:

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. As the nominator is facing a CIR block for wasting editors' time over redirects and no one else has voiced support for their suggestions, I'm closing this as no consensus without prejudice toward further discussion if someone else wants to re-raise this issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IDevice → List of iOS devices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term for List of iOS devices, and since a lot of non iOS devices also start with the "i" designation, for example, iMac. Delete, unless a justification can be provided Retarget to Timeline of Apple Inc. products. the ultraUsurper 06:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not an unlikely Search term [2]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: i've changed the nom. the ultraUsurper 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UltraUsurper: the reference I pointed to says "An iDevice generally refers to any Apple mobile device that runs Apple's iOS operating system" and the current target is therefore the most logical. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: That's just one reference. From my research, iDevice refers to any Apple product, not just iPhones. Plus, Timeline of Apple Inc. products also covers iOS devices, so it seems like the most logical choice to me the ultraUsurper 07:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that User:UltraUsurper is now indef blocked for "wasting massive amounts of other editor times in the redirect space.". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 26 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 speedy keep. This was a talk page that simply ended up pointed to the wrong target, and now matches the article redirect. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:IPhone (first generation) → Talk:Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two completely unrelated products from two completely different companies. the ultraUsurper 05:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Redirect blanked per WP:RGUIDE: "Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:37, 24 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kalpit Veerwal → Joint Entrance Examination – Advanced  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The subject was the scorer of top marks in JEE Main, which is not a sign of notability. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E applies here. The subject is not-notable in any other way. The redirect should be deleted. Zoodino (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about Kalpit Veerwal. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. the ultraUsurper 07:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned anywhere else on WP, and no reason for a mention. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There isn't any special award for achieving such a feat. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 25 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.