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) 21:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• An old friend → Bakugan Battle Brawlers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what purpose this ever served or why it's lasted so long. The phrase is used in the target, but not in a context where a redirect would be at all useful. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the lists of episodes, in List of Bakugan or List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers characters, or in the article at the time the redirect was created. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only use of this was in an old unsigned user talk page comment at User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive89#Keep fighting the good fight. Without digging through the history to figure out who made it, I'm going to wager that it was the same user who made the redirect, and for this express purpose. Unless there are any other valid targets out there, there's no reason to keep this. (I'd be really surprised if there are no songs, stories, TV episodes, etc. by this name, but I don't see anything obvious). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per rationale of Deacon Vorbis N2e (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for obvious reasons; a common phrase should not delete to an obscure and fairly unrelated target. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rather a surprise for it to be associated with a video game. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:13, 3 October 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. @Tenryuu: If you want to do this, you need to move the page with the disambiguator to the title without. This is uncontroversial, and you can simply list it at WP:RMTR since there's a redirect in the way preventing you from moving it yourself. If you're having trouble with this, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page, and I'd be happy to help. (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bridge program → Bridge program (higher education)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page redirects to a page with the disambiguation "(higher education)" appended to it. As it is the only article that is referred to as "Bridge program", I don't see any need for the disambiguator to exist. I would like this page to have the content currently over at Bridge program (higher education) by deleting it and moving the content over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:22, 28 September 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 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. There is no album Vanished. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, for context: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 28. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to Tassedethe, the only other logged-in editor to comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf: thank you: I failed to check that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Civilization (album)#Singles which is where the content that the redirect pointed to when it was kept in 2010 now resides. The arguments from that earlier discussion still apply. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The two songs listed on the disambiguation page are also EPs [1], [2] and the distinction between albums and EPs often gets lost. - Eureka Lott 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Neither song is identified in its own article or the disambiguation page as being an LP, but that could just be a failure on our part that will eventually be rectified. Since it's a longstanding redirect, I can live with it. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 6 October 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) 01:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CinemaWorld → Blue Ant Media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak retarget to Cineworld as a plausible search term for that chain. There are several cinemas called "Cinema World" or "CinemaWorld" but none of them are at all notable. Nor does what appears to be an online streaming service demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Probably not WP:MADEUP, as it's listed as a sister channel in the infobox of Blue Ant Extreme. But there's also a CinemaWorld HD in ((Television in Malaysia)), which is likely unrelated, and Thryduulf's suggestion is at least a plausible error. I think search results are probably the best we can offer right now. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain search results are going to be that helpful, but I think we can agree that the status quo is not the best option here so I'll go with deletion as my second preference. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 9 October 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) 18:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not clear to what "jupewearers" refers, and although it is likely to be Jupe (clothing) I can't find a source that mentions it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:45, 28 September 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Enola Homosexual → Northwest Herald  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

TLDR: This page has a redirect to Northwest Herald but is no longer relevant.

Context: At the time the redirect was created, the target article included a sentence, later expanded into a separate section, about a copyeditor using a style manual blindly and changing the name of the bomber Enola Gay to Enola Homosexual in a headline. The section was removed from the article years ago [3] I have also shared my view with the author (Scott) on their talk page. Amit Dash (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could have been speedy-deleted IMO, since the target article contains nothing related to "Enola" or "homosexual". -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as offensive and useless. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Talk:Enola Gay#Enola Homosexual for an explanation. Apparently it's an embarrassing error made by this paper. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Scunthorpe problem#News articles damaged * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the best source I've been able to find (Los Angeles Times, which actually has a picture of the headline in question) states that it was a human editor who wrote the headline, not an automated filter gone wrong. Thus content about this wouldn't fit at Scunthorpe problem. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I created the redirect, but it doesn't seem to fit if the article isn't going to contain it.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Added my !vote since my comment is replaced with the original comments by Rockin291. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:51, 2 October 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retropropulsive landing → VTVL#Technology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retropropulsive landing is not entirely contained in VTVL. It can be used on HTVL vehicles. Retarget to retrorocket. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE (unless the "retrorocket" article is re-written) — Wikipedia exists to explicate concepts to our global readers. Retropropulsive landing is a thing; it is used on all space probes landing on airless or little-atmosphere solar system bodies, and is used most frequently in landing more than a dozen Falcon 9 first-stage boosters each recent year. Currently, the only place that the concept of a retropropulsive landing is explicated is in the Vertical landing technolgy section of the article where this redirect points: VTVL. The term is not even mentioned in the newly proposed target (Retrorocket). So the redirect is clearly in the right place for now. But if some other section of some other article comes to better explicate the concept, then by all means, the redirect could (and should) change at that time. N2e (talk) 02:02, 29 September 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 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Next montenegrin parliamentary election → Parliament of Montenegro#Elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect from incorrect capitalisation created in error. Should have been updated to reflect Next Montenegrin parliamentary election, but in any case unneeded, as search is case insensitive and maintaining this redirect will be unnecessary burden. Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarget only some search methods are case insensitive, and the possibility that it might not be updated in future is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to imagine which readers are better served by the existence of this redirect. Because of its existence, people searching for "next montenegrin parliamentary election" (without caps) would have been incorrectly redirected to the Parliament of Montenegro instead of the more relevant 2020 Montenegrin parliamentary election, at which they would have arrived via the correct redirect had the miscapitalised one not existed. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would have, in the past tense - that issue has now been fixed. You also ignore the point that not all methods of finding Wikipedia articles are case insensitive - if this redirect is deleted those users using this capitalisation will be taken to either the other capitalised redirect, search results, a page informing them of the deletion, a page inviting them to search and/or a page inviting them to start or request an article depending on the method they used to arrive at the page, what device they are using, whether they are logged in (and if so whether they are an autoconfirmed user), and possibly other factors. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a miscapitalisation, so a red link showing up when it's linked to would be help identify the error. I imagine users using technical methods such as directly typing in the URL will be experienced enough to quickly manually navigate to their intended target (which is still better than being redirected to the wrong target, as is likely to happen again). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unused and mistakenly-created redirect. N2e (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was prepared to say retarget per Thryduulf as it seemed a non-harmful miscapitalization, but the target page doesn't even have information about the next election. It should be deleted, along with the properly capitalized Next Montenegrin parliamentary election, which has a different target and is already out of date. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 6 October 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 19:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Galician parliamentary election → Parliament of Galicia#Elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should have been updated to point to Next Galician regional election, which has been deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Next Galician regional election. Paul_012 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The target contains the information someone using this plausible redirect will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing links here, there have been very few page views recently (ignoring those linked to this discussion) and I don't see any reason why any reader would end up here. AndrewRT(Talk) 11:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Yes, there's a single sentence about the topic right now, but that's really a minimum, and it could very easily change quickly. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 6 October 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.. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Thai legislative election → Next Thai general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused old r from move. New "next general election" articles are routinely created once an election occurs, and the existence of this redirect is an administrative burden. What is likely to happen is: When the upcoming election is scheduled, the current target will be moved to YYYY Thai general election, and this redirect updated by a bot to point there. When the election takes place, the Next Thai general election redirect will be converted into an article, but this redirect will be overlooked and remain pointing at the wrong target. This was already the case for almost ten years, between 2007 and 2017. Paul_012 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the target is currently correct and useful. Deleting because it might be incorrect at some future point is not what we do, or should do, here - mainly because it can be verily easily fixed and also because doing so would violate (the spirit of) WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very easily fixed these might be in theory, the practical truth is that in these redirects' entirety of existence, you were the only editor who checked them for updating, once, in 2017. If they are to be kept there needs to be a maintenance structure to make sure they're correct. Otherwise they will surely do more harm than good. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I did try and set something up but it got conflated with a different idea and sunk by someone (now community banned) who objected (by the paragraph) to something that wasn't being proposed. However that is not relevant, we do not and should not delete redirects just because at some future point they might not be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 22 September 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 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Titiedius Servilius Casca → Gaius Servilius Casca  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name is completly made up ★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no person so named attested. Avis11 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 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 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy) → Idiot#Etymology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

NAME1 SLASH NAME2 redirects are implausible. We have Idiot (Athenian democracy) but not Idiocy (Athenian democracy). Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per K4 – this redirect is unambiguous and an ((R from move)). Gets views, presumably from old links that cause annoyance if broken. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:38, 29 September 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 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 05-2106 → Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 05-2249 → Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 05-2384 → Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Those redirects are literally ID numbers, so they are not likely to be search terms. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:44, 28 September 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 17:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ray Fisher (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Angie Fisher (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• John Welch (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Eileen Swannack → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• David Thompson (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chris Dyer (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Christopher Bell (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Philip Heathcote → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Stephen Mellor (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Trudy Jones → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ann McQuire → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jim McQuire → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Claire Windass → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lisa Burbidge → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bruce Wilkinson (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scott Chalkley → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sue Davey → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• William Graham (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lisa Graham → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• John Stollery (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Janet Stocker → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• John Stocker (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Charles Evans (terrorism victim) → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Carly Lovett → 2015 Sousse attacks#Victims  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are good-faith creations of redirects for victims of the 2015 Sousse attacks, but they are not mentioned in the article and the redirects are therefore confusing, and some are potentially ambiguous. Delete in accordance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and consistent with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18#Sharon Bell, and with no disrespect to the victims or their families. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 28 September 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tunebite → Digital rights management#Implementations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D10 virtually no information. The section at the target is a bulleted list, but this is not even listed there. Its only use is in Comparison_of_video_converters#Overview. It's mentioned on the company website here but I suspect the product either is discontinued or has been renamed – in either case this is just the start of a wild goose chase for our readers. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was recently an article, but was converted to a redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to revert the redirect and seek deletion as an article on its own (normally WP:AFD, but this might be a good candidate for a WP:PROD as well). Pinging Ravenswing, who converted. Thoughts? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, striking my !vote as nom. I can't have checked the history (I was cleaning up something to which this was tangential and must have missed that) but it would seem to make sense to revert and propose deletion. I did find websites selling this, and tunebite.co.uk is live, but the reviews at the bottom of the page there are over ten years old. The product owner Audials really doesn't have much information about it on their website, and the link I gave is buried four levels deep in the site's hierarchy. I think it has been renamed to "Audials One Universal Converter" and that the use of "Tunebite" there is just a copy-editing lapse, but I can find nothing that says so. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article per Deacon Vorbis, and submit to AfD if necessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:37, 5 October 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:RNEUTRAL is the more relevant guideline here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Murder of Matiu Ratana → Killing of Matiu Ratana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was left behind after the article was renamed due to this being an inappropriate title. As the nature of this killing has not yet been established, and the suspect has not been convicted of anything, let alone 'murder', then the use of the word 'murder' cannot be supported, -- DeFacto (talk). 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because even a redirect shouldn't describe a killing as murder when a suspect has been arrested & will likely be tried. Jim Michael (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and ((R from move)). There are reliable sources using the term "murder", e.g. [4], so it is a plausible search term. Obviously it is an inappropriate title for the article unless and until someone is charged with murder, but it is the job of the article to make it clear whether it was or was not murder (or if that is disputed to make it clear that it is disputed). The redirect serves to direct people who use a non-neutral search term to the neutral article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In cases such as this, even if a suspect is charged with murder, the article (inc title & cats) should still not say it was murder until there's a murder conviction or the suspect dies prior to reaching the conclusion of the trial. Jim Michael (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed it shouldn't, but this is a redirect not an article so the relevant policy is WP:RNEUTRAL, which explicitly allows non-neutral titles if they are useful search terms, e.g. because they are terms used in reliable sources (which applies here). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: noting though that the Metro is not a reliable source, it is classed as 'generally unreliable' in WP:RSP. I'm sure though that you will be able to find some that are accepted as reliable. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, "reliable" was the wrong word to use here but the Metro is a prominent secondary source. The term is also used by the BBC [5][6] (not in the headlines though), Local newspaper [7] (body), The Independent [8] (headline). If I spent more than a minute searching I'm sure I could find more. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Given it is used in various sources, and given that someone looking for information about this incident presumably doesn't have all the facts (hence why they are looking it up), this is definitely a valid search term. No judgement is cast against the suspect by including a redirect as "murder" is not mentioned in the article. We are not discussing the article or title here, only the redirect so neutrality is not required. A7V2 (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf – RNEUTRAL applies. BLPCRIME does not apply, as it includes the clause: [...] material—in any article—that [...]. We shouldn't inconvienience readers here especially when the applicable guideline states to not do so (from RNEUTRAL: if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms). ((R from non-neutral name)) is placed prominently on the redirect; I don't see that this redirect can reasonably accrue legal problems given all the other uses of the term. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: except that this redirect does not represent an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. Google only gives three (3!) hits on this term ("Murder of Matiu Ratana") from the entire www (excluding Wikipedia), and none of those are mainstream.

Sure, the word 'murder' is used in conjunction with this person's name in many sources, but that is generally because they are reporting that there is a murder investigation in progress, not that one has necessarily occurred, so that is an entirely different context. That investigation is attempting to establish whether there is any evidence that this was a murder, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the first BBC article listed above by Thryduulf ([9]) "Police are continuing to search farmland in Surrey which is believed to be connected to the murder of Sgt Matiu Ratana." A7V2 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: do you think we should we move it to that term then ("Murder of Sgt Matiu Ratana"), to at least get one hit in a mainstream source? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to move as this is a redirect. If you feel it warrants it then go ahead and make a second redirect. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the exact term used by various sources (and I was merely refuting your claim that they are only reporting on an ongoing murder investigation, not that a murder had occured). Also, should Matiu Ratana himself have an article, a perfectly valid redirect could be "Matiu Ratana (police officer)" but this is unlikely to appear in reliable sources verbatim, so that is an unreasonable standard to expect of every redirect. Per what I said above, this is clearly a valid search term so it's not overly relevant what they say, but it adds to the reasons to keep. Matiu Ratana was killed, and so it is plausible someone will search for the article in this way. As I and others have already said, there is no need for redirects to be neutral as they are not the same as article titles. A7V2 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL as others have pointed out above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:35, 5 October 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pakistan-occupied Kashmir → Kashmir#Terminology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be retargeted to Pakistan-administered Kashmir a la Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:07, 28 September 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.