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 21:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• America flu → 2009 flu pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• American flu → 2009 flu pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is an invalid redirect, there are no reputable sources that utilize the term "america" or "american flu" nor does the target mention it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundled with American flu Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a term used in any reliable source known to me (except in the context of saying that the 2009 pandemic is not known as the North American flu, or similar terms). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First off, it is American, not America, and second, the redirect is ambiguous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. "American flu" has no particular affinity to this specific pandemic. Regards, SONIC678 23:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both I suspect the original article was created in reaction to Trump's insistence of calling the virus 'Chinese virus' more than anything else. robertsky (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are not plausible search terms. If I had to guess what someone might be searching for with these terms, it would be annual flu statistics in the US. Natureium (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only thing this would make sense to redirect to would be Flu in the United States, which doesn't exist. Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both If someone wants to follow the convention of naming viruses after their location of origin, then 2009 H1N1 would be named “Mexican Flu”. But I think we all know why the editor(s) who proposed this silly redirect would have no interest in that degree of accuracy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I'm not aware of any reliable sources labeling things this way. The contrast is notable when one looks at commentary about the so-called 'Spanish flu'. That's a label arising due to historical lack of media censorship on that country's troubles coupled with the illness affecting the Spanish royal family (not that the whole nation was especially hardly hit in that pandemic). I'd change my mind if I saw news coverage to the contrary, but, until then, I'm positive that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and sanction the creator - for malignant disruption of the Wikipedia project and for not using WP:RS to justify his creation. XavierItzm (talk) 11:15, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tanner Fox → List of Charmed characters#Wyatt Halliwell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable child actor who only appeared in Charmed, but it does not meet WP:BIO. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of diss tracks, with [[Category:Living people]] ((DEFAULTSORT:Fox, Tanner)).

Notability is irrelevant for redirects. That's why ((R from song)) and the like exist. However, in this case the information that an actor appeared in one episode of a series, and nothing more, is really too little to support a redirect.

Tanner Fox is a YouTuber with 9.68M subscribers, one of whose videos went viral with 57M views. Those numbers on their own don't make him notable, but they do make him a potential search target, and there is some detail in the one I propose. I very much doubt he is notable: I failed to find even one WP:RS source about him. The best of a bad lot is his IMDb entry. The child actor has this IMDb entry. Both entries mention stunt scooters, and I suspect that they're the same person. I've seen split filmographies on IMDb before; a practical illustration of why it's not RS. Narky Blert (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Narky's comments, but this is a case where a redirect inhibits Search, and the use of Search gives better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I dm'd the social media figure asking if he'd had a part in Charmed and he replied in the negative. Should I supply a picture of the exchange? - knoodelhed (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be horse's mouth evidence of the potential unreliability of IMDb; but I would not post it anywhere in WP without express permission. Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd rather that we just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:55, 22 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 Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869) because I do not see consensus to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868) → Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedural nomination: this was tagged for G6 CSD by Cards84664 with the justification because Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1869) already exists as a redirect with the correct years. Not to be confused with Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886).. Given that this redirect has a different target in addition to having different years listed, I thought it would be better to bring it to RfD rather than acting on the CSD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep According to the article it links to, the CPA changed it's name in 1868, before becoming something different in 1869. Since it no longer bore the CPA name after the name change in 1868, it would be reasonable to give 1868 as the ending year. Hog Farm (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This redirect was created in 2009, long before the Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869) article was created in 2014. The CP&A (1848-1869) merged with the LS&MS Railway in 1869, not 1868. The LS&MS merged into the New York Central Railroad in 1914.

This is not to be confused with the Lake View and Collamer Railroad, which entered foreclosure in 1879 and changed its name to the Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886). There is a ten year gap between the operations of the (1848-1869) and the (1879-1886) railroads. the CP&A (1879-1886) merged into the Nickel Plate Road in 1886, which was owned by the LS&MS until 1914 and the NYC until 1916.

To summarize, Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868) should be deleted, Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1869) should be kept as a redirect to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869), and Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886) should be kept as a redirect to Lake View and Collamer Railroad. Cards84664 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To respond to @Hog Farm:, 1869 is a gray area since the corporate structure of the CP&A was intact with their one year run as the Lake Shore Railway (1868–1869) (which to note, also redirects to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869)), before merging with Michigan Southern. Cards84664 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if consensus is to keep, we could just change the redirect to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869). Cards84664 20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure, frankly. I agree with everything that Cards84664 has laid out here and he's right, the tricky part is that the name did change in 1868. It's minutiae in the grand scheme of things, but true. Redirects are cheap, but we don't need this one, and I think there's a good argument for moving Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869) to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad given that it's the clear primary topic, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869) (with ((R from alternative hyphenation)), ((R from alternative name)), and ((R unprintworthy))); I think that is the easiest solution in this scenario. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this has a very confusing history because of several redirect renames (see here). As such, I believe that ((R from page move)) would be appropriate as well. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:15, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:हेम्प → Hemp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful CNR. Formerly had content, so maybe not a G13 candidate. No merge occurred, so no ATT issues Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What language is that? I want to Google translate the original text in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also Delete. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OcelotCreeper:. It's Hindi. Narky Blert (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Oh ok thanks. Here is the translated text from before the draft became a redirect (probably not 100% accurate).

Hemp is a less addictive species of cannabis. It is one of the fastest growing plants. Humans started using its fibers 10 thousand years ago. Many things can be done such as making paper, making clothes, biodegradable plastics, paints, fodder for animals, biofuel and insulation. However, both cannabis and industrial hemp, used as a drug or drug, belong to Cannabis sativa species, and both contain a psychoactive (affecting brain behavior) substance, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). But the special thing is that the two things are different. In the hemp, THC, which changes the behavior of the brain, or rather has a very small amount of narcotics and has a high amount of cannabidiol (CBD). The intoxicating effect is reduced due to cannabidiol or CBD. Such species of hemp are also available, in which the amount of THC is even lower.

OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The deleted text seems to be an attempt at a Hindi version of hemp, which currently doesn't exist. Foreign-language drafts are acceptable; but I can't see the point of one which duplicates a small part of a B-class article. Oh, and the redirect looks useless. Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean yourself → Toilet paper  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous, could refer to many things other than toilet paper. Hygiene might be a possible target, but even that is a stretch. Leaning delete. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hygiene is probably the best target, but this could refer to so many things. Hog Farm (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ambiguity of redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to ritual purification. Narky Blert (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could refer to many other things. --Woofboy (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ... which, by the way, this redirect was a good find and I'm surprised that I never found it, considering that this redirect has existed since 2002. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete clean it. IW. (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean this redirect per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm genuinely surprised that this redirect has lasted this long. Since 2002? Really? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:29, 22 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.