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) 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Elrond Hubbard → L. Ron Hubbard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: obscure and implausible -- BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:R3. I did not even find an article on Google that refers to him as Elrond. I was trying to see if it appeared in the urban dictionary or something. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject not known by this name. Elrond is an elf in The Lord of the Rings. R3 does not apply, as it only applies to recently created redirects and this one is from 2006. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 14 March 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) 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gray mare → Spanking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article. The only relevant search result that I could find for "gray mare +spanking" is this Pinterest page, which suggests it was an instrument used to punish prisoners at a Colorado jail. I think that readers who search for this term are more likely to be looking for information about horses, or maybe the folk song The Old Gray Mare, than an obscure spanking implement, and would suggest deleting or retargeting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Retarget to The Old Gray Mare per SpicyMilkBoy. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget somewhere else if appropriate (SpicyMilkBoy's suggestion of The Old Gray Mare sounds as good as any). Looking at a RFD for a prior redirect of "Punishment horse", where it used to redirect, it was once apparently a section in Spanking, but that's a long ride for a gray horse. I'd prefer Delete, but an appropriate retarget would not break my heart. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A retarget would be acceptable, but not preferable. I'm not sure if the song is what users would be looking for without the 'old'. Hog Farm (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. My first thought was "Tom Pearce, Tom Pearce, lend me your grey mare"; a different folksong altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and inhibits the use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 15 March 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) 19:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Trek: USS PAN → Star Trek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't understand this redirect. It doesn't seem to mean anything... TheAwesomeHwyh 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a fan film, but I'm not sure. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does not mention the redirect at all making the redirect pointless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reference to a planned film that was never made: [1]. There's no article, and rightly so; an article on this maybe-someday film would not pass WP:NFILM. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 13 March 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. Nabla (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slavery in the South and West → Origins of the American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old but problematic redirect. I get where this is coming from: slavery in the South and West contributed to the US Civil War. But the redirect says nothing about the US, and the target article doesn't address this topic directly. Perhaps Slavery in the United States is more suitable, but I'm leaning towards favoring deletion. BDD (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. Even though Bristol and Glasgow were involved in the slave trade, there was little if any slavery in the South and West of England or in the South and West of Scotland. I don't think the South and West of Ireland were involved at all. Narky Blert (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To paraphrase the Doctor, "Lots of countries have a South (and West)!" --BDD (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Potter's general-purpose interjection to deflate someone who knew what he was talking about – "But not in the South". Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. The south and west of north Africa was at the centre of the European slave trade, and Europeans didn't introduce the concept of slavery to the region. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely ambiguous as to what it is referring to. Is it referring to the USA, Africa, Europe, the world in general, or something else? Also we should DAFT or BJAODN this, the ambiguity of this redirect always makes me chuckle when I think of it. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the United States is not the only country where slavery occurred in the south and west. Hog Farm (talk) 03:08, 14 March 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 Redirect replaced with an article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chemdas Shlomo → Meir Dan Plotzky  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is redirecting to the wrong place. But the article for the correct person does not exist on English Wikipedia. See Talk:Chemdas Shlomo page for more information 205.156.136.229 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation / translation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article was created! 165.225.39.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot, now that the redirect has been replaced by an article. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 17 March 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 restore article. I'm not going to procedurally nominate this for WP:AFD, but anyone is free to do so if they feel the need. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast Track (company) → NortonLifeLock  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page does not mention the existence of the redirect target. It seems to have been acquired by it, but I don't think this is sufficient for a redirect. If we had a list of NLL acquisitions or such, it would be a different case, but since we don't... WP:ASTONISH and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Great, your PROD got shot down and the article was redirected. And to make sure the article is properly destroyed, you now try to destroy the redirect. Another example of a WP:POINTy deletion nomination based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article. This was an improper redirection due to this company not being mentioned at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article. It had been around since 2008, and should go to WP:AFD for proper discussion, not WP:PROD/blank/RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 14 March 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 restore article. I'm not going to procedurally nominate this for WP:AFD, but anyone is free to do so if they feel the need. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slavena (beer) → Kamenitza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The topic (beer brand) is not mentioned in the target article at all. Presumably it is made by this brewery but is it sufficient to keep the redirect? I think it is enough to mention this fact at the Slavena disambig page, it is unlikely someone would enter this as a search term. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD (this had been an article for 14 years until it got turned into a redirect just last month) or alternatively keep as a redirect but add a sourced mention to the target. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Add sourced mention in article or delete. Slavena was only mentioned in the categories so people using the redirect will get nothing. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Great, your PROD got shot down and the article was redirected. And to make sure the article is properly destroyed, you now try to destroy the redirect. Another example of a WP:POINTy deletion nomination based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article. This was an improper redirection due to this beer not being mentioned at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article. Articles of doubtful notability which have been around since 2006 should go to WP:AFD, not go through a devious WP:PROD/blank/RFD sequence. Narky Blert (talk) 03:57, 14 March 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) 19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Darmstädter Ferienkursen → Darmstadt School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A speedy nom I had to procedurally decline. I don't speak German, but User:Gerda Arendt does and I trust her, so when she calls it a wrong plural, I'm willing to take her at her word. —Cryptic 09:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is grammatically not correct. The plural of "Kurs" is "Kurse", not "Kursen". By the time some reader would have typed the correct one he'd arrive at the (new) article Darmstädter Ferienkurse, to which if kept this should redirect. I thought getting rid of it was simpler ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC) · Adding that no article uses this redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GA (Ich verstehe Deutsch). Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I'm German). Grimes2 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Among English speakers Kurse creates much confusion: I'm constantly fending off program-bio proofreaders who want to change it to either "Kursen" or more often "Kürse". Since I created the redirect the search box has gotten a lot smarter, as Gerda notes, but a query: is everybody using the same interface? Sparafucil (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What's new is that there IS now an article with the correct plural. So before you would have a chance to enter the wrong last letter, my interface will have told me that there is an article. Someone unfamiliar with German Grammar will probably search in English, no? Let's make some more good English ones, such as Darmstadt Vacation Courses, Darmstadt Summer Courses, etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have redirects from the incorrect English plurals oxens and brethrens. I don't see why we need redirects from incorrect plurals in other languages. Errors in WP develop a life of their own and get perpetuated; as WP:BEFORE searches often show.

  I don't like unofficial translations of non-English titles, they're WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean any translation as article, only as redirects to help searching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has averaged only a little over one hit a month for as long back as we have handy stats, so it doesn't look like your proofreaders have been looking for this here. —Cryptic 12:11, 16 March 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 Brown (racial classification)#Use in the United States. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown Americans → Brown (racial classification)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 11#Brown Americans. It was deleted per WP:G7, but then was recreated by the discussion nominator afterwards to point to its current target. I'm renominating because I don't think this redirect is helpful towards its new target and probably shouldn't exist at all. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add more information about use in the United States at the target. This Guardian piece (opinion, yes, but written by a professor of English) and this can both be used as sources.feminist (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Brown (racial classification)#Use in the United States following my addition. feminist (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree, there is always something about the article that feels wierd. Probably the fact calling someone a Brown American in real life instead of an African American sounds more racist to me. Also, Brown (racial classification) does not just refer to African Americans, it refers to the racial term in general. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can certainly be used as a derogatory term by racists. However, some notable Americans self-describe themselves as brown Americans, and the target contains information about this usage. feminist (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't see any reference to African Americans in this discussion or at the current target, and I would appreciate some elaboration on that point. Thanks, feminist (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used the term African Americans in my vote. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retarget to Brown (racial classification)#Use in the United States. There it talks about how multiple races are put down by calling them brown. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine to Brown (racial classification)#Use in the United States. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 20 March 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• San jo → San José  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no examples of "San jo" at the target disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Could this be a plausible type for 'sanjo', especially given the language barrier? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. San Jo it short for San Jose according to the urban dictionary and this redirect has a decent number of pageviews. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban Dictionary is the equivalent of original research. There needs to be a more specific reference than that. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just another Urban Dictionary neologism, which is a species of WP:MADEUP. 42 page views in the entirety of 2019, not many readers are hitting it, and I doubt any of those wouldn't have known about the correct name. In addition, as CoffeeWithMarkets points out, it's probably just as likely it should go to a different target. TJRC (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Smash Mouth used it, presumably in reference to the California city from which they hail, in 1999's Astro Lounge, but it does strike me as a plausible error for Sanjo, especially with the capitalization as it is. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 20 March 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 List of Teachers episodes. I have created Narky Blert's suggested disambiguation. I have closed in favor of it because I am interpreting the "retarget to dab" !votes generally, and now we have a dab that is a closer match. I have included a link in the see also to Teachers (disambiguation)#Film and television for those wanting that page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Teachers (US TV series) episodes → Teachers (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target does not disambiguate the redirect, though the redirect is ambiguous: List of Teachers (2006 TV series) episodes vs. List of Teachers (2016 TV series) episodes. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate at List of Teachers episodes. There's also List of Teachers (British TV series) episodes, to which List of Teachers Episodes unhelpfully redirects. Both redirects should point to the new DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Teachers (disambiguation)#Film and television which contains 2 entries (as listed by nom) which both contain a list of episodes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is unlikely for a reader to search using such a disambiguator in the middle of the page title. Second choice is retarget to Teachers (disambiguation)#Film and television. feminist (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can anyone point to precedents either way? Usually mainspace doesn't follow the category-space practice of using main-article qualifiers in related articles, but I think there are some exceptions. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 23 March 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) 19:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Techniques (Pokemon) → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon moves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Techniques" is not mentioned in the article, and I don't think (but I'm not sure) that "technique" hasd a special meaning in Pokemon that's different from the general use of the word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Secret Techniques" are apparently a significant element in the games Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! and have received a smattering of attention from various articles online (such as this one). They're not mentioned at the related page for the games, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term and according to this [[2]], this redirect only got 92 pageviews in the past 4 years.

Edit: If you change the dates to ever since July 19th 2016 like so [[3]], you will notice that this article only 46 pageviews in the last 3.5 years. That is roughly 13-14 views per year. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:49, 13 March 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) 19:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tech2 → Firstpost  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no indication why this redirects here, and in real life the term is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure if this term is that ambiguous. I'm seeing it mostly used in reference to electronic control systems in General Motors vehicles. I'm not sure what the proper target would be, though. There's an article at 'General Motors Local Area Network' that needs a lot of work that contains "Tech2" exactly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does not even mention the word tech at all so whoever uses the redirect will get nothing. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per OcelotCreeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analog Horror (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 March 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) feminist (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 coronavirus pandemic tables → Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/WHO situation reports  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:R2. Sawol (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:R2 explicitly excluded pages in the Template: namespace. Besides, it is a plausible search term; would be a desirable target. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 07:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFD#D6. Recently created (9 February 2020), and it's not a plausible search term ("tables"?), which is partly why it's already been moved twice. Were I searching for that, I'd more likely be looking for the base page Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The year is wrong (should be 2019-20) and as of this writing the WHO has not classified it as a pandemic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WHO declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CNR. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is reader-facing content (so it being a CNR is irrelevant) and is exactly what someone using this plausible search term will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are many 2020 coronavirus pandemic tables in Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak templates. This is pretty ambiguous. Sawol (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now located at Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic templates. ComplexRational (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I recall that templates such as the target have similar cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace such as this one, and they have been kept at RFD on the past. Most such redirects target templates for railroad train maps. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Most inappropriate XNRs are to user, project, or draft space. The fact that it is located in template space is irrelevant if it helps readers (we also link categories directly in articles for this purpose). ComplexRational (talk) 01:20, 17 March 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.