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 2016 United States presidential election. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton → List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to 2016 United States presidential election, which Trump vs. Clinton and Clinton vs. Trump already redirect to. The election is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under that name. Additionally, this seems to have been the conclusion of a prior RfD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as with the below nomination. The election is the primary topic. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per (my comment at) the nomination below. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as clear primary topic. I'm not opposed to creating a second redirect or hatnote to disambiguate, though. ComplexRational (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. There's a clear primary topic, and the current one isn't it. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, per the nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2016 United States presidential election per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:22, 28 January 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 2020 United States presidential election. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden → List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election, which Trump vs. Biden and Biden vs. Trump already redirect to. The election is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under that name. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nomination. I'm sure it's a perfectly fine YouTube video, but the election is the primary topic for any variation of this phrase. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; I wonder why I did not notice this when creating the redirect. I guess I just wanted to complete the redirects from all the episodes of the series. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've now also nominated Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton for the same reasoning above. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and my comment above as clear primary topic. ComplexRational (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, per the nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Why the heck was it even targeted to that video in the first place?? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm in favor of retargeting, but should Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney redirect to the 2012 presidential election even though there's a standalone article about the ERB video?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2020 United States presidential election per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:23, 28 January 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Butcher of Queen's Road East → Gordon Wu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An extremely pejorative redirect to a living person's article. There is no information or any source in the article to explain why it redirects here, so it should be deleted. Nonetheless, I've listed it here instead of marking for speedy deletion in case the redirect's creator can shed some light on why this redirect exists. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - confusing; no indication what this refers to. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing comes up on a Google search sans this redirect, and with neither "butcher" nor "queen" mentioned in the target article, I can't make heads or tails of this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created this re-direct, apparently. I am sure it was for a good faith reason, from a reliable source, but I cannot recall what now. Best it just goes, for proposer's reasons. Onanoff (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete presumably some sort of reference to Hopewell Holdings' involvement in real estate redevelopment at Queen's Road East, but as a nickname it seems to be entirely unused in English WP:RS, and the only even vaguely-similar nickname I can find in Chinese is [1]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete creator of the redirect now recommends deletion. I have taken the liberty of tagging.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 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. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Climate Barbie → Catherine McKenna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. This isn't a widespread nickname for Catherine McKenna so much as it is an insult used by her political opponents; there isn't anybody who knows the phrase "Climate Barbie" who doesn't already know her actual name. It would be like having something from the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump redirect to the person in question (Low Energy Jeb et all exist, but redirect to the nickname page— not the person).

But don't just take my word for it: it's received a grand total of six pageviews in the past 30 days. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Opponents calling McKenna "Climate Barbie" went on for several years while she was the Minister of the Environment, and there is a significant discussion of it and her reaction in the article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Unlike with the other redirects mentioned, the principal discussion of this nickname on Wikipedia is on the person's article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. This is the best we can do for readers searching this up. Note that six pageviews in 30 days is actually quite a decent amount – and deleting this redirect only serves to annoy those readers. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:28, 28 January 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 The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II: The Rise of the Witch-king. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Earnil → Eärendil and Elwing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Eärnil → Eärendil and Elwing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not included in target. Hildeoc (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was initially a disambiguation page, but then incorrectly retargeted to Eärendil by Izno. Currently, this only has one passing mention at The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II: The Rise of the Witch-king. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it can either be retargeted to The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II: The Rise of the Witch-king or deleted. The default choice should be to retarget since somebody has felt it worth mentioning there, unless there are clear reasons to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @1234qwer1234qwer4 and Chiswick Chap: Maybe restoring [an improved version of] that dab should be considered here.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:00, 15 January 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 Presidency of George Bush. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bush era → Presidency of George W. Bush  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect could be confused with George H.W. Bush. I recommend disambiguating this redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to George Bush, a disambiguation page who's first 4 links are George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush and their presidencies. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think BDD's suggested target is better and more accurately fits what people would expect to find when searching for Bush era, I missed that page when searching. I'm therefore changing my vote to support retargeting to Presidency of George Bush. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to George Bush DAB page is a good proposal, better than simply disambiguating the Bush era redirect. Drdpw (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Retaget, but to disambiguation page Presidency of George Bush. Trump era and Nixon era redirect to their respective presidency articles; Reagan Era is an article, with a hatnote to the presidency page; but Kennedy era redirects to John F. Kennedy#"Camelot Era". (If my proposal here is accepted, I intend to retarget it to Presidency of John F. Kennedy unless anyone thinks it should be discussed separately.) We don't have analogous redirects for other presidents since 1932, as far as I can tell. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retaget to Presidency of George Bush, according to BDD's proposal. An "era" can not be targeted to a biographical article. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Bush is not a biographical article, it is a disambiguation page that is a superset of Presidency of George Bush. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. The Bush DAB option is decent, but the presidency one covers the only two meanings people are likely to be thinking of—basically what this title would itself say if it were DABified as suggested by Interstellarity. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. The normal Geroge Bush dab page contains many other George Bushes who weren't the President of the United States. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. That page also has a link to Bush (disambiguation) in case someone really wanted to look for the Kate Bush era. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Presidency of George Bush per BDD and others. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:30, 28 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederick the II of Prussia → Frederick the Great  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article was briefly moved to the redirect on 22 Oct. 2020 by a vandal and now-banned editor. Using 'the' with Roman numerals is neither correct nor a usual mistake and so I propose it be deleted. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as relatively unlikely search term (due to the "the"), although I don't think the history really factors into this, so long as neither G3 nor G5 applies (which AFAICT they don't). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 04:08, 22 January 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 and refine to Angélique Kidjo#Õÿö. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Õÿö → Angélique Kidjo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes it is; the nominator is lying. Õÿö is mentioned multiple times at Angélique Kidjo; there's even a subsection on it at Angélique Kidjo#Õÿö. What kind of mistaken nomination is this? Ss112 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong words—we all make mistakes. See WP:NPA and Hanlon's razor. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @BDD: I would have been inclined to give this user more of the benefit of the doubt until I found they have repeatedly edited experienced users' talk page archives for no discernible reason, several of their edits looked like vandalism—including telling one editor "reverting all your edits", and leaving several all-caps rants as edit summaries. It's still a mistaken nomination. Ss112 18:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Refine target to Angélique Kidjo#Õÿö. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine as above. I just cleaned up its entry at Oyo (disambiguation) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:29, 22 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ïbïtoso language → Chamacoco language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please make sure to check "what links here" (Special:WhatLinksHere/Ïbïtoso language) before nominating redirects for deletion. This is a dialect of Chamacoco that is mentioned in multiple academic publications, including Campbell (2012), a widely used standard listing of Amerindian languages. The target mentions it as Ebidóso, and Jolkesky (2016) spells it as Ibitoso. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 23:53, 21 January 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 speedy delete. Given the statement by the bot owner that this is a relic of a minor bot bug, this is effectively a WP:CSD#G7. ~ mazca ^talk 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onian Li language → Livonian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Li language (onian) → Livonian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as confusing. 49.48.134.8 (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has nothing to do with Livonian. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Seem to have been created by a bot, perhaps mistakenly or due to a bug? The bot claims to have taken the names from the ISO 639-3 doccumentation, but I can't see either of these names listed on their website. Searching the internet resulted in no hits for either of these names. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've alerted the bot operator to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (from bot owner). That is a bug, of sorts: ISO 639:l contains the entry "Liv(onian)", and the bot interpreted this in the same way as "Lama (Togo)" etc. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 21 January 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 Livonian language#Alphabet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ȫ → Livonian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ȭ → Livonian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Refine section to Livonian language#Alphabet. 49.48.134.8 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, as that section contains the information relevant to the letters. This could have probably just been done WP:BOLDly by the nominator, non-controversial retargets like this don't really need a discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The redirects were not tagged for RfD. I've corrected this. Also pinging the logged-in participants of the recent discussion: @Tavix, Thjarkur, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Rosguill: Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: per above. That is the option I !voted for in the previous discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:30, 21 January 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 with no prejudice against refining further to Belarus#Elections. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Europe's last dictatorship → Belarus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• What the heck!?!? 49.48.134.8 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 'What the heck!?!?' is not a deletion argument. You could argue this is NPOV, but 'X country is a dictatorship' doesn't constitute NPOV for the same reason 'X book had bad reviews' doesn't. (Both can be NPOV violations, but aren't intrinsically so.) It's unclear whether or not this is a useful redirect -- "Europe's last dictator" is a reasonably common epithet for Lukashenko. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common epithet for Belarus in many reliable sources:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and many more. I haven't seen the term applied to other countries. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Buidhe. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Buidhe. This phrase is relativeley commonly used to refer to Belarus and Lukashenko. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm changing my vote to Keep and Refine to Belarus#Elections, which explains the usage of the phrase. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Belarus#Elections: the phrase is explained there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:32, 21 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gay Republican → Log Cabin Republicans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Gay Republicans is a documentary film about four Log Cabin Republicans and the debate over gay marriage in the United States. I would retarget there. Cnilep (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, LGBT Republicans points to LGBT conservatism#United States. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gay Republican should redirect to LGBT conservatism. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Republican Party (United_States)#LGBT issues, which provides an overview of the republican party's views on LGBT rights and some of the factions in the party. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Changing my vote because thinking about it again I realised there's a number of equally valid targets here. Realistically this could be referring to Gay Republicans, Log Cabin Republicans, LGBT conservatism#United States, Republican Party (United_States)#LGBT issues, List of LGBT politicians in the United States, List of LGBT members of the United States Congress and probably a couple of other articles too. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page that was at 'Gay Republicans' and linked to the film and to Log Cabin Republicans, and had the various conservative LGBT articles in its See also section, was deleted about a month ago. Those things are not actually ambiguous as Wikipedia defines it, since they are not called Gay Republicans as such. I moved the film to that title after the DAB was deleted. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If not a DAB page then how about a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article? LGBT and the republican party seems like a notable topic that could have it's own article. It could be structured in such a way to cover all the related topics above, e.g. History and party views; Legislative history; LGBT members; LGBT groups and organisations; Depictions in the media etc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No primary topic or really any topic with this exact name, and the DAB relating to this title was deleted. Maybe if there was a similar DAB somewhere this could point at it, but I certainly don't think one should be created at this title, so given that I'd just delete it BlackholeWA (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As others have pointed out, there's no useful target article. Here are the three Pages that link to "Gay Republican":

1. Paul Koering: He is believed to be the first openly gay Republican elected official in Minnesota
2. Ezola Foster: ... to protest its recognition of the Log Cabin Club, an organization of gay Republicans.
3. The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green: a controlling and even emotionally abusive gay Republican

(These links should be unlinked, or split into gay and Republican.) — Chrisahn (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this redirect were U.S.-specific, then I think Republican Party (United_States)#LGBT issues would be the logical target, but "Republican" is not a term unique to U.S. politics. As "Republican" as a label can refer to a wide variety of things (not necessarily the same things that the lowercase version refers to), I doubt we'll ever wind up with an article that this could suitably point to, like LGBTQ involvement in political parties that happen to use the word "Republican" in ther names. Or, for that matter, LGBTQ involvement in republican movements, which is a bit less broad a concept, but still probably too broad for an article. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 10:23, 25 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 贺锦丽 → Kamala Harris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFOREIGN. I don't think Kamala Harris has any special relationship to the Chinese language or any Chinese-speaking countries.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED. 49.48.134.8 (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Kamala Harris has an official Chinese name 贺锦丽 and it is not the phonetic transliteration of her English name, see. This name is pronounced as Hè Jǐnlì in Mandarin (Pinyin) or Ho⁶ Gam²-lai⁶ in Cantonese which has nothing related to her English name. If the discussion close as delete, please also delete 賀錦麗 as it is the Traditional Chinese variant of her name. Sun8908──Talk 04:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a name she is known by. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the contrary, Kamala Harris does have a relationship to the Chinese language. Chinese is widely used in San Francisco, where she was District Attorney. SCMP is considered generally reliable, and this topic avoids the problem areas of the source. (Chinese Communist Party and Alibaba) and [10] does explain the why pretty well. Rklahn (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: per above, keep if the name is added to the article. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908, per the article linked this clearly is a name that she's been known by, and is a specific, chosen Chinese name rather than a phonetic transliteration. Her selecting a Chinese name in connection with voters in the area makes this not the kind of thing WP:FORRED is trying to stop. If there's a good spot to mention it in the article, great, but it's a big article already that's only going to get bigger. ~ mazca ^talk 19:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 02:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908. Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As her Chinese name is not well-known in English world, this redirect makes most of English speakers confused. If you do want to keep it, please add it in a suitable place first.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most if not all scenarios, the reader will arrive at this redirect via searching it up – so they will already know that it is a name for Harris, and expect to be redirected to Harris' article. It doesn't matter that the redirect may confuse people who don't know about the name, because they are extremely unlikely to come across the redirect. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sun8908 and my comment above. Gets good views as well. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:55, 28 January 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 deleted by BD2412 with summary This is a recreation of a deleted page. There is also a duplicate article currently in the draft space. (I !voted below, but this is a purely procedural close, simply reflecting an administrative action that's already been taken.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden → Presidency of Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This subject is not discussed at the target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it. There are already vacancies to be filled and candidates for nomination who have been mentioned. As soon as an actual nomination has been made (probably within the next week or so), we will move Draft:List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden to that space. BD2412 T 01:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. This directs readers to a page with no relevant information. As soon as Biden makes an appointment, which might be next week but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then this title will be free for anyone to move a draft to. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per REDLINK. There's rarely a good reason for a "List of" title to redirect to a page that doesn't contain the relevant list. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is currently a version of the article in the draft space, and the article has been deleted. I move that we close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 January 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.