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 Overwrite, with the article at the (improperly) capitalized Biological Data. Any merge discussions can happen at WP:RM. Jay (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Biological data → List of file formats#Biology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Biological Data exists as an article, but perhaps should be merged to Bioinformatics (and this page target changed to Bioinformatics. If not merged, that page should be moved here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue, as this should either be a merge or requested move discussion, but move Biological Data to Biological data to correct both the improperly capitalized article title and the mistargeted redirect. Further discussions can address possible improvements, but this would at least fix the status quo. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overwrite "biological data" with "Biological Data". Mergers are discussed through WP:Proposed mergers -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely typo, not mentioned in the target. It is a misspelling (for naïveté), but I do not think a very common one. From my experience, it certainly is not a common mispelling in French (and fr:Naïvité is a redlink rather than a redirect for what it’s worth). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has had only 13 page views in a year.Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like a typo that neither a French speaker nor a non-French speaker would make. Spidermario (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A redirect of this misspelling (of a word right up there in the lead) has been used and is therefore helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've never seen this word written before. I know "naï" is correct, and the pronunciation of the last vowel being weird for English, I would guess that é is correct there. However, because I say "i" not "e" for the middle section (like "it" rather than "eat" or "bet"), I would guess that this was the correct spelling. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both editors above. Term is mentioned in lead and therefore useful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CycloneYoris. It seems to be very plausible typo, due to its language and vowel sound. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:A1B4:3655:3EF1:C0A0 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2021 (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) Chumpih. (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ogel → Lego Alpha Team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

OGEL can also be a type of licence under Export Control, can be Oil, Gas and Energy Law as well as the current Lego Alpha Team or indeed the Lego Alpha Team (video game). Suggest Disambiguate. Chumpih. (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a WP:DIFFCAPS issue. If we're going to have a disambiguation page—and I'm not convinced we need one—it should be at OGEL (currently a redirect to Oil, Gas and Energy Law), not at the nominated term. - Eureka Lott 23:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you EurekaLott (talk · contribs), you're quite right. I'll close this one and reconsider. Chumpih. (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2021 (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 (equivalent to) nomination withdrawn. Jay (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• W32/Leaves → Sub7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No justification for redirecting to Sub7. The only sources for similar malware names, such as https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?Name=Worm:Win32/Leave.G describe it as a pure network worm, so no relation with the Sub7 backdoor is likely. It should be deleted so someone could write about the worm if they want to. HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the small sentence on the Sub7 article about that the Leaves worm might drop Sub7. I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose deletion as an implausible misnomer or typo. Was declined under WP:R3 on the basis that it is an "alternative name" rather than a "misnomer/typo". But, per the discussion and agreement with the creator the source used for this "alternative name" is unreliable and incorrect. The redirected term *is* a misnomer. And *not* an alternative name. This is otherwise an WP:EASTEREGG. (The target article does not [and has no reason to] refer to the redirect term.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as R3 decliner; does not look ambiguous between notable topics. Seems to be a used shortening of the town's name, and even if it is a misnomer it does not look to be an implausible one. In regards to this, an unreliable source for notability can still be a basis for a redirect, and it isn't often that an italicised phrase is misspelt. So I'm pretty sure it is an alternative name, if vaguely obscure. A lack of a mention in the target article isn't enough to delete either – most readers will be able to infer that if a phrase they search up leads them to a specific article that the phrase would refer to the article. Alternatively, delete or possibly disambiguate? A Wiktionary entry. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created the redirect, but I think now I should not have done as my source was that listicle which I understand has multiple factual errors.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. No appropriate term in English, and also can cause confusion. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:BC3F:ED78:C130:2209 (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too vague to disambiguate, better to leave this as a red link and let the search engine handle it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 2405:9800:BA31:F6. It's clearly WP:XY. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:A1B4:3655:3EF1:C0A0 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2021 (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 Alles ohne Strom. Which was what Andde14 intended to do. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alles Ohne Strom → Alles Ohne Strom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to itself HelixxUnderscore (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, self redirect was created as a result of vandalism HelixxUnderscore (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • someone please close this HelixxUnderscore (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it was not vadalism it was just an improper redirect please close this HelixxUnderscore (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sixth Studio Album → Ti Ora Tha Vgoume?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently created as placeholder title, no actual relation to the target, ambiguous. Should be deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, whose sixth studio album? If it said it was Helena Paparizou's in some way, then it'd be more plausible, but since there's no indicator, we don't need this generic title here. Regards, SONIC678 23:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly ambiguous. - Eureka Lott 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally open to multiple interpretations. Azuredivay (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: without an artist's name, this could literally be redirected to any musical artist with six or more albums, so it serves no useful purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2021 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AFD8 → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 26  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old can be used instead, and the parser function ((#time:)) breaks the redirect. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a soft redirect, it's still a better shortcut than clicking through to WP:AFDO. If there is some technical reason why that is harmful, then altering the redirect is still better than deletion. czar 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a broken shortcut redirect that can't actually function as a redirect due to technical limitations in the mediawiki software, and which only gets updated when the page is edited or purged (at the moment it's pointing to the 14th instead of the 18th). If you need an automatically updating link to discussions from 8 days ago use [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/((#time:Y F j|-8days))]] to make a direct link instead. 0 incoming links that aren't related to this discussion, so it never seems to have been used anywhere and so deletion shouldn't break anything. On a procedural note this discussion should probably have been at WP:RFD instead of here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should have been listed at RfD—did not notice that when I relisted this because I found this case so distractingly interesting. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, although I wouldn't really object to just deleting it. This doesn't work as explained above, and the AFDOLD page adequately fulfills its intended function. Although this shortcut doesn't seem to be getting much use, retargeting it to the AFDOLD page would be nominally preferable as an alternative to deletion, I suppose. (A sidenote: couldn't this have just been left alone? Surely it wasn't doing any harm.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this is useful, but if Czar says he finds it useful it's not helpful for us to second-guess that. As I said above, this is essentially harmless, so any possible benefit is sufficient for me to !vote keep. This discussion was certainly not worth the not-insubstantial amount of time it consumed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwerfjkl, Czar, and Extraordinary Writ: I have relisted this once more, but in the proper venue as to potentially solicit more input at a forum that is more appropriate for such matters. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A reminder that incoming links is not the only indication of "use". I use this shortcut several times a week without linking it from anywhere. czar 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to being listed at MFD it had recieved 7 page views in the last 12 months. [1] 192.76.8.80 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use it in conjunction with WP:AFD7 but my point still stands. That there is a technical limitation on how Mediawiki soft redirects rather than automatically redirects does not impair its function as a shortcut straight to the two AfD lists in highest need of admin closure. czar 17:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Czar is using it and finds it useful, that in itself is a good reason to keep it and there is absolutely no positive reason for deleting it. It might not see much use, but there is no benefit in making any editor's work harder. SpinningSpark 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not a standard RfD entry. This was at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AFD8 and the discussions are from there until it was moved to RfD on 16:05, December 4, 2021‎. This can be closed on or after December 11.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spinningspark. - Eureka Lott 18:46, 11 December 2021 (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 Created redirect in mainspace and tagging this as talk page of a redirect, as suggested.. Hog Farm _Talk 20:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Etymology of Islamabad, Pakistan → Islamabad#Toponymy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was going to tag this for R2 (redirects from the talk namespace to the mainspace are unlikely to be useful, and this is newly-created), but an error flags up that I'm only suppose to use ((Db-r2)) in the mainspace, so here we go to RFD. Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was tempted to speedy delete this under WP:G8 as a talk page of a nonexistent article, but after looking closer, it appears to be a plausible redirect created in the wrong namespace. I think we can redirect Etymology of Islamabad, Pakistan to Islamabad#Toponymy and convert the talk page to a ((talk page of a redirect)). - Eureka Lott 18:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Please do this?, and I Thankyou for looking into this👍🏼2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:58A8:90AC:58EF:DB7B (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Azerbaijanis in Norway → Azerbaijani diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Norway is not mentioned. A similar redirect for Sweden has recently been deleted. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Confusing and unnecessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 17 December 2021 (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. Ignoring the sockpuppet, there is one !vote agreeing to disambiguate and one !vote to restore. However, there is also some hesitation expressed about that disambiguation (not to mention that it was created by the sockpuppet). Therefore, I will accept the other option to restore without prejudice against AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regulatory law → Administrative law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Dabify to Draft:Regulatory law. In fact, the term Regulatory law can have two meanings: delegated law or administrative law. I am not a lawyer, but as far as it seems to me, the first meaning is more common. --Northumber (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per Northumber --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft DAB needs to be created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CycloneYoris, Draft:Regulatory law is created. --Northumber (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closer: Nom has been blocked as a sock. Not sure if any action should be taken with this nomination. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I'm not planning on closing this, but this is a weird one. There doesn't seem to be an WP:SOCKPUPPETRY in the RfD, but also WP:STRIKESOCK is a policy, having said that it doesn't mention what to do if the nom is a sock. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 00:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article and maybe send to AfD: this had been an article from 2006 until the bold retargeting of four months ago. Whatever its merits (it was unsourced), this will need further discussion. As for the draft dab, I don't see any sources there (or mentions of the phrase in the linked articles), so we can't unquestioningly accept it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2021 (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 as article. The article is now created, which is what the nom wanted in the first place. Aervanath (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Meibomian gland dysfunction → Meibomian gland#Dysfunction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deleting this redirect allows for a red link on mebomian gland and dry eye articles. As this should have its own article, I'm proposing deleting this redirect. Also the section this redirect points to, does not exist on the article. Neo139 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The section "Dysfunction" was at some point renamed to "Clinical significance" so if this redirect is kept it should be retargeted there. A7V2 (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have created a draft with content from Clinical significance. Jay (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the detailed article Meibomian gland dysfunction/pathology/problems/clinical significance/whatever exists in mainspace. Facts707 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the stub article created by Jay until someone adds more content. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:50, 17 December 2021 (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

In addition to current target (dab), this has redirected to Nyungar language, Minangkabau language, Minangkabau people and was always changed without discussion. From the most recent change/edit summary, the dab may not have been intended. I'm making no recommendation myself. MB 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify to at least Minangkabau people (also known as Minang), Mineng (also known as Minang) and Padang cuisine (which is also known as Minang cuisine). I might have missed some plausible targets. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created a draft per Lenticel. Also added the languages from the nom. Jay (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2021 (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.