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

The result of the discussion was Procedural close - Monster (Shawn Mendes and Justin Bieber song) is now an article and the other two have been retargetted to there. If anyone has concerns about the article they should take them to prod or AfD. If anyone thinks the other two redirects should still be deleted then they can be nominated in a new RfD. This close is without prejudice to any future discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Monster (Shawn Mendes and Justin Bieber song) → Wonder (Shawn Mendes album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Monster (Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes song) → Wonder (Shawn Mendes album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Monster (Justin Bieber song) → Wonder (Shawn Mendes album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no confirmation that Justin Bieber will take part in the song, "Monster". All the sources saying so are unreliable. See WP:CRYSTAL. These redirects should be deleted. CountyCountry (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Note: I am withdrawing this nomination. Shawn Mendes has confirmed that this song is a collab with Justin Bieber, and that is sourced in the album article. I now support keeping these redirects. CountyCountry (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, it’s WP:Fancruft, WP:BALL and it’s a full on rumour. It was not confirmed by Mendes nor Bieber that they were collaborating. Keep all It is now confirmed that this is a collab and that it will be the next single from Wonder. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) (updated 21:13, 16 November 2020)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, there is no mention of Justin Bieber on the album article at all, which makes these redirects invalid search terms. ((R from song)) requires that the subject be mentioned at the target article.Hayman30 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Article now created. Redirects should be kept for discoverability. Hayman30 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 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 21:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category of monoids → Category of magmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Delete to encourage article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:45, 22 November 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sylwester Zawadzki (disambiguation) → Sylwester Zawadzki  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

redirect to a disambiguation page that is AfD'ed itself. The Banner talk 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The Banner, if the disambiguation gets deleted, then any redirects to it are automatically deleted per WP:G8, so there is no point in nominating redirects separately. And if the page is kept, then this redirect will still be useful per WP:INTDABLINK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 15 November 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 21:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Netflix original ended series → Template:Netflix original ended series (2012–2018)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @YoungForever with the reason "Template has been split into two templates. It is not appropriate to redirect one, but not the other" FASTILY 05:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They are correct in that statement. Template redirecting to any of them is bad. Replace usages with appropriate template and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We'll need to deal with the transclusions before deletion. --BDD (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Gonnym. Yes, a bot/AWB pass will be needed to make sure articles are pointing to the correct template before its deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Ambiguous redirect. I'm happy to do an AWB run for it, when necessary. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex 21: If you did an AWB pass now, I don't see the harm. Regardless of the outcome (which does look like delete), it still is good practice to ensure you have the correct template on the article, especially for the mainspace articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done [1] Only needed to update 22 articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Best to get rid of it if we've fixed the articles with transclusions as it's ambiguous now. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:21, 21 November 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, no further input has been forthcoming. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hekate event → Hekla 3 eruption  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in an internet search and Scholar search, whether spelled as "Hekate" or "Hecate". Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain This was on a list of missing articles, with a description that was unambiguously the Hekla 3 eruption. I believe that the list it came from was from the index section of history books. I think it might be a very obscure/deprecated name, or perhaps a transcription error. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we can figure out a reasonable source for any use of this name. The alphabetical similarity of Hekla -> Hekate despite Hekate having other meanings does suggest to me that this could easily be a transcription error in the index Acebulf mentioned, and I also can't find any record of this being used. ~ mazca ^talk 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:03, 12 November 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 21:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chapter 11: The Bounty → The Mandalorian (season 2)#ep11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a speculated title for the episode "Chapter 11: The Heiress". Since the title is incorrect, it is highly unlikely that people will actually use this redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now Useless if it's incorrect.--TheVampire (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion as it’s incorrect information. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chapter 11: The Bounty was incorrect, actual title was Chapter 11: The Heiress. I'm only surprised this hasn't been deleted already. -- 109.76.194.97 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 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 Mathematical Operators (Unicode block). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ≣ → Equality (mathematics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, but listed on Mathematical Operators. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as not mentioned anywhere except in the template ((Unicode chart Mathematical Operators)) and the articles that transclude it. Not used in mathematics either. D.Lazard (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget, adding content if necessary. All single unicode characters are likely search terms and should redirect somewhere, this is defined as "STRICTLY EQUIVALENT TO" in the mathematics operators block so it seems like the current target is appropriate.Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is definitively inappropriate, as it is an article on mathematics, and this symbol has never been given any meaning in mathematics. The name of the Unicode block in which this symbol appears is not a reliable source for attesting that this is a mathematical symbol. If the redirect is retargeted, the only reasonable target is to a Unicode article. Any other target would be WP:OR. D.Lazard (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Equivalence relation#Notation, where it is mentioned. Another (less frequently used) meaning associated to this symbol is found at Congruence_(geometry)#Notation. I'm not aware of other meanings, so an own disambiguation page wouldn't make sense. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jochen Burghardt: Apparently you are confusing the "four bar equal" (which is the object of this discussion) with the "three bar sign". I must acknowledge that I had to zoom to 25pt for being able to count the bars. D.Lazard (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor D.Lazard: Oops, you are right; thanks for the hint. I withdraw my statement. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with D.Lazard that the "4 bar equal" is not used in mathemtics. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The unicode definition of this character is "Strictly Equivalent To." Strict inequality exists as a redirect to and is covered at Inequality (mathematics). Strict equality does not exist and is seemingly not covered at equality (mathematics). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Godsy: A "strict inequality" is the irreflexive kernel of the corresponding weak inequality; this notion doesn't make sense for equality. Possibly, "strict equality" could mean a relation (in theoretical computer science) that evaluates to false if any of its operands is undefined, see strict function (which, however, doesn't mention ≣). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, "strictly equivalent" is a phrase that is sometimes used in mathematics for emphasizing that two definitions or two theories are equivalent even in the marginal cases. (it is used in several places of Wikipedia). But this is an informal concept, and, as such, it cannot be represented in a formula (I have never remarked before that "formal" and "formula" have the same etymology, and that, strictly speaking, "informal" means "cannot be expressed as a formula"). As definitions and theories are not mathematical objects (except in proof theory), a symbol for "strictly equivalent" is totally useless outside proof theory. I doubt that such a symbol has ever been used in proof theory, and if it has, this is probably not this symbol that has been used (at least because it does not exist in LaTeX, and it is almost unreadable in Unicode). D.Lazard (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mathematical Operators (Unicode). Single Unicode characters are usually considered to be likely search terms, so this should probably point somewhere. The article on the Unicode block at least mentions this character, which is good enough for now; hopefully in the future we could find some sources explaining why the Unicode Technical Committee decided to add this character to Unicode in the first place. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retargeting to Mathematical Operators (Unicode) seems to be the best idea to me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mathematical Operators (Unicode) per above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mathematical Operators (Unicode block). I change my !vote per above. Note that Mathematical Operators (Unicode) has been moved and redirects now to Mathematical Operators (Unicode block). D.Lazard (talk) 20:38, 22 November 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.