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 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Houston, Texas (redir) → Houston  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Leftover from weird page move; implausible title. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G6. This page is left over from a round robin page swap after cleaning up some page move vandalism in 2008 and was probably meant to be deleted then, see the history of Houston, Texas. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible and thus useless.Less Unless (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No point in keeping it. AKK700 18:56, 5 February 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 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible/WP:UNNATURAL disambiguator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If linked, this will generate a WP:INTDAB error, and we have enough of those (500-1000/day) without giving encouragement. Narky Blert (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We already have Bulge (disambiguation) so this is pointless, yes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (dab) is an erroneous disambiguator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 4 February 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 Template:Template sandbox. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Test template → Template:Signpost-subscription  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reason this should redirect to the signpost. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This was used as a sandbox for the current target in almost fifteen years ago. I don't think this page history is significant. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: And good find too! The sandbox is no longer needed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to being a WP:SANDBOX in templatespace. Redirect to ((Template:X1)) -- this is a good way to point to the actual sandbox in templatespace -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with using the below suggested destination of ((Template sandbox)) instead of ((X1)) --- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:Template sandbox. The page history shows that at least a couple of editors have used this page as a sandbox for testing templates in the past. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Template sandbox per 86.23.109.101 as the template sandbox is used for testing templates. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:14, 31 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 Anime and manga. We may not have heard the last of this. The redirect is old, but curiously, its creation was the only contribution of the editor who made it. Is Film comic a better target? Is this a French or Italian term that could run afoul of WP:RLOTE? Consider this a borderline WP:NCRET, i.e., if you're asking whether it's too soon to open another discussion, the answer is no. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Manganime → Portal:Anime and manga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If anything, this should be retargeted to Anime and manga, though I don't know how plausible this portmanteau is. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Anime and Manga: per nom - I suppose it is likely someone might combine the two terms. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Before it was linked to Portal:Anime and Manga, Manganime used to redirect to Film comic, which is essentially a manga that uses anime stills. They are also known as "Ani-manga", but not usually "Manganime". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoshiman6464: Actually, AniManga exists as a redirect there, so this might be a plausible target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This actually might be a possible foreign WP:RS. [1], [2]. It wouldn't be notable enough for an article or redirect, but could be mentioned at WP:A&M/ORS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Pretty obvious portmanteau.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have changed my mind to retarget this to film comic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:30, 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 no consensus. As with the similar recent discussions, I suspect consensus would change rapidly if there were a non-hypothetical conflict. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BW → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Once redirected to bioware subpage, but has since been retargeted to the root WikiProject Video games page. Confusing and probably unnecessary. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 11:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I support preserving these unless there's a reason not to; old editors do find their way to the WP:VG hub by visiting their old projects. Unless there's something else that requires WP:BW, I see no reason to change this just for the sake of it. Same with WP:MK. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With no indication that the BW shortcut is required for anything else deletion would break links for no reason at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use a bot or AWB to update links in old posts. WP: shortcuts (especially actually short ones) are a finite resource, so we should not preserve ones that no longer serve a purpose and will not see future use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These shorthand Wikipedia shortcuts are a scarce commodity as pointed out, but I generally don't think that these should be deleted unless there's a reason to, in order to prevent breaking old talk pages and archived pages. This one isn't too bad because it only has 25 incoming links, but some of these were quite heavily used. I would suggest creating a page in wikispace at a title like WP:List of disused shortcuts where all these disused shortcuts can be listed along with where they used to link and roughly what date they stopped being used. If someone wants to reuse one of these shortcuts they would use a bot to replace incoming links with a direct link to the target page and remove it from the list. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:10, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Brennage → wiktionary:Special:Search/brennage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Interwiki of a very rare word to wiktionary that only has a definition in Middle French. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We could as well create such redirects for every foreign-language word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Brennage" and it fails the criteria at ((Wiktionary redirect)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This word appears in some English dictionaries, such as the OED, and Wiktionary used to have this as an English entry, but it was deleted. 2601:644:100:9F20:759F:3EFD:1E3F:3199 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Readers actually used this in 2020. It seems to pass the criteria at the wiktionary redirect template, as people are actually searching it, and given that there's no content here to point to, that's the most helpful for readers. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 30 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 no consensus. I'll remove the category and tag with ((R unprintworthy)) to avoid suggesting there was such a thing. I agree that addressing the lack of an inquiry directly in the article would be a good step. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Second impeachment of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an unneeded redirect. Who is really going to search "second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" rather than "Second impeachment of Donald Trump"? Also, there was no inquiry during this impeachment, and having such a redirect, sort of implies that there was. I'd say delete this redirect. SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sufficiently useful. MB 03:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there was no inquiry. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there was in the first case an impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, so a reader aware of that and of the second impeachment might look for a second inquiry. It might be useful to explain in the article on the second impeachment that it skipped this step (which is atypical of federal impeachments in the United States). BD2412 T 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There never was an inquiry. Mgasparin (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BD2412. While there wasn't an enquiry this time there was last time, and normally is, so it's reasonable for someone to be looking for information about it. We better serve such readers by taking them to the content that explains what happened this time than to give them generally unhelpful search results. It's also possible that by "impeachment inquiry" they are wanting information about the process as a whole - what exactly "impeachment" means is generally very poorly understood by non-Americans (e.g. thinking it refers to the whole process from allegation in the House of Representatives all the way through to Conviction in the Senate is a common misconception). ((R from misnomer)) exists for situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and explain in the article why there was no inquiry this time. I can see this being searched especially after reading the article on the first inquiry, and wanting to know what happened with the second inquiry. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BD2412, Thryduulf, and Tavix. Reasonable search term given the existence of First impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. The lack of an inquiry should be briefly described in the target article if not already, pointing out there was an "inquiry" in the first impeachment. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:36, 30 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• COVID-019 → Coronavirus disease 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. CrazyBoy826 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Literally hundreds of independent uses (at minimum) for this exact term and the redirect is getting plenty of views, so there is nothing implausible about this evidentially useful redirect at all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide your data source? I'm using ToolForge and it indicates this redirect was not used a single time in the first three weeks of the year. Covid 019 was used 6 times. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wikmoz, it does seem to be used: "Moderna COVID-019 Vaccine Receives Emergency Use Authorization", https://globalnews.ca/tag/covid-019-news/, "Interpretation in times of Covid-019", "CDC finally says airborne COVID-019 transmission is a reality", even a website: https://covid-019.com It might be a less common style, but it appears to be real. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The non-Facebook links look like rare outliers and typos. For Global News, compare the one story tagged to "COVID-019" to the hundreds tagged to "COVID-19". Likewise for Northern Broadcasting. With exception of one incorrectly titled article, all of their articles refer to the disease as "COVID-19". - Wikmoz (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My source for the page views is the stats link in the nomination header, which shows that it was used 12 times in the 30 days preceding this nomination. A google search for the exact terms shows plenty of uses such as Stella Man College, VA Clean, Idenitywa, GV Wire, Hungarotrial, Peace and Justice Centre, Arizona Centre for Rural Health, Colorado Public Radio, West Vancouver Memorial Library and many, many, many more. It took about 10 times longer to type all this out than it did to find this, so I'm not sure what WP:BEFORE you did prior to nomination, but it wasn't very effective. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the original nominator. I checked ToolsForge before replying to verify this redirect is not being used (same applies to the "Covid 019" redirect). So it seems to fail #8 in WP:RDEL, also WP:R3 given the ToolsForge results. There are 7.4 billion Google results for COVID-19. No question that with that many pages, some organizations will misspell the disease name. There are indeed 14k results for "COVID-019" but nearly a million results for "CIVID-19", half a million for "CO-VID 19", and a quarter million for "COVOD-19". - Wikmoz (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly the toolforge results show it is being used. Nobody is doubting that "COVID-19" is the correct name and also the most common name but that's not relevant here. All that matters is whether this is also a useful search term, and all the evidence is that it is (see WP:R#KEEP points 3 and 5. Those other terms are WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's possible that some of them will also be useful search terms (I've not investigated) and if they are they should also exist as redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The ToolForge stats link shows 12 uses over a month in which the destination topic received 680,000 PVs. Interestingly, when you look at redirect hits, the PVs shown in the stats don't appear on the destination topic. So that's why I seriously question the utility. Is it possible those hits are editor views and not actual user redirects? It also looks like, had the redirect not been there, the type ahead still shows a link to the COVID-19 pandemic topic. Results page also suggests "Did you mean covid 19". The guidelines are vague enough for this to be debatable. It may be helpful to suggest a minimum usage threshold in the guidelines. I guess that's a separate discussion though. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The relative number of page views and relative number of google hits are irrelevant because we're not talking about which is the primary topic, which is the most likely search term, etc. Literally the only question is whether this term is a useful search term, and an unambiguous term that helps ~12 people a month find the content they are looking for clearly is. While it's not impossible that some of those views are from editors rather than readers, experience of literally years of looking at redirect statistics is that new redirects get a spike of views in the first 2-3 days after creation attributable to editors, after that truly implausible redirects get a single digit number of page views per year, so 12 in a month is significantly greater than any threshold would be. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one seems like a straighforward delete. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It's accurate, unambiguous, harmless and used. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though this doesn't seem like an intuitive typo, 14k Google hits is a significant number. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The catch is in the denominator. 14,000 out of 7.8 billion is 0.00018% (or 557,000 non-"COVID-019" COVID pages for every 1 "COVID-019" page). - Wikmoz (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Except as I explained above, that's completely irrelevant. It could be 99% or you could add another half dozen zeros before the significant figures and it wouldn't make a difference. The only thing that matters is whether "COVID-019" is a search term that people use to find the Coronavirus disease 2019 article, and all the evidence we have says that they do. It doesn't matter if more people use other search terms, just as the fact that an order of magnitude more people used the COVID-19 redirect than the Covid-19 redirect, both are useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "It could be 99% or you could add another half dozen zeros before the significant figures and it wouldn't make a difference." I think this is where the guidelines could be clarified because the relative number should be part of the equation. If we're strictly interested in absolute numbers, this argument would justify every single possible long tail spelling error for popular topics. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  the relative number should be part of the equation Why? If a redirect helps say 12 readers a month find the content they are looking for, why does it matter whether that is 12 of 20 or 12 of 2 million? If we're strictly interested in absolute numbers... The slippery slope argument doesn't work, because while absolute numbers are part of the story they aren't the whole story and many implausible search terms are deleted (and vastly many more are not created). Other things that are considered are how plausible the search term is (e.g. redirects with two different errors are rarely kept), how many views the redirects get, whether the term is ambiguous (see for example Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Tidle), whether the redirect has history, what (and how many) sources the term is used in, and anything else relevant to the individual redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I'd suggest that even though this is an infrequent misspelling, it is a common misspelling. Common in that multiple independent people have made the same spelling error, and it's not a one-off. And redirects are for common misspellings, not just frequent ones. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#2 above. The redirect doesn't seem really plausible to me. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seventyfiveyears Speedy keep #2? Isn't that the intentional vandalism one? Do you have a reason to suspect this nomination of being made in bad faith? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seventyfiveyears: this is yet another example of you clearly not reading (or not understanding) things you are linking to (how many times have you been told this now?). Even if there was any suggestion that this nomination was made in bad faith, speedy keep point 2 explicitly does not apply when an "uninvolved editor has recommended deletion [...] as an outcome of the discussion." but in this case Wikmoz has, in good faith, recommended deletion. Additionally "The redirect doesn't seem really plausible to me" is an odd reason to keep anything, and (even if you did mean "implausible" or forget a crucial "not") absolutely not a justification for speedily doing anything. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Sorry about that, now I clarified and just changed my vote to "keep". It was not vandalism; however, I thought that this nomination was probably disruption. Yes, it may or may not be bad faith, but now I saw a delete vote and like I said, I removed the "speedy" and just changed my vote to normal "keep" . Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's unambiguous and will be helpful, even if for a limited number of users. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:46, 3 February 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! 06:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Przemysław Zabawski → Krystyna Zabawska  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is a notable athlete in his own right as a Polish national champion. Redirect is not appropriate in this circumstance as there is no further info on husband at the redirect so red link is preferable. SFB 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he is mentioned on the target page. The fact that national champions have been given default notability by someone is an effing travesty. He fails WP:SPORTCRIT by a huge margin. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mentioned on the target. CrazyBoy826 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Tag as ((R with possibilities)) if you wish, but I can't see how pl:Przemysław Zabawski would survive at AFD if translated into English. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 30 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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 18–1 → 2007 New England Patriots season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like an unlikely search term, and could make it harder for readers to find 1:18 scale. 18–1 refers to the Patriot's total record of wins that season, including the post-season. Deletion seems appropriate in my view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. If I were to type 18-1 into the search bar I'd expect to find January 18, but searching online suggests this could also refer to a scale, Luke 18:1, some chemical compounds and a couple of bits of legislation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too ambiguous. CrazyBoy826 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If we delete this, should 28-3, which redirects to Super Bowl LI, be deleted as well? —- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also 18 January in non-US date formats, India's overnight score against England in 2006, England's overnight score against Sri Lanka in 2011, a bet in horseracing, Sam Curran's 2nd innings bowling figures for England v India at Edgbaston in 2018, and the Parable of the Unjust Judge, among other things. Hopelessly ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too ambiguous.Less Unless (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#28-3. ComplexRational (talk) 18:31, 31 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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Ward Port → Christopher O. Ward  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be a search engine style query, as the subject's name is Christopher Ward and he is notable for being the executive director of a Port Authority. I think that this redirect should be deleted, although I would have no objection to more proper disambiguations such as Chris Ward (Port Authority), Chris Ward (civil servant), Chris Ward (Port Authority director) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are almost certainly people whose name actually is Chris Ward Port. But this guy doesn't have that name. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. How would you DEFAULTSORT it? Narky Blert (talk) 08:02, 31 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 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This Is Me (The Greatest Showman song) (Redirect) → This Is Me (The Greatest Showman song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per discussions of other redirects that end with "(redirect)". JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on first impression this looks to be a left-over from a Round robin move, but pinging Jerm in case I'm missing something. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary. CrazyBoy826 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, forgot to suppress this while performing WP:ROBIN. Sorry. Jerm (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jerm. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G6/G7 left over redirect from performing a round robin page swap, page history is trivial and not worth preserving and deletion is endorsed by the editor who moved the redirect to this title. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not really worth putting to a discussion. Ss112 04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. AKK700 18:58, 5 February 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 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• W. B. Chilton → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• R. Coleman (Europeans cricketer) → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• E. R. Coxon → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Davis (Europeans cricketer) → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• R. Fawkes → Category:Europeans cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia: the only cricket-related search results for "R. Coleman" are at English women's cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1934–35 and Alfred Coleman; "R. Fawkes" seems to be ambiguous as per the mention at Wikisource (for the rest, search does not return anything even slightly related). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, redirecting to a category is completely improper. Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it will and is confusing the readers. delete 83.22.244.15 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I couldn't find any list entries or similar that these could target, and redirecting to a category is unlikely to help readers. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. (1) A redirect from a person to a category is useless to readers. (2) If we had an article List of Europeans players, that would be a good target; but we don't. (3) R. Fawkes's cricketing record is only marginally more distinguished than mine. (3) CricInfo (WP:UGC, but generally trustworthy) has no record of any R. Coleman who played for Europeans. Narky Blert (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 31 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 H45. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• H-45 → H-class battleship proposals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to H45, a dab page with a couple of plausible entries. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the IP. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above and tag as ((R from ambiguous term)). Narky Blert (talk) 13:09, 30 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 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of enemies in Doom 3 → Doom 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Like the one below, there is no enemy list in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of enemies). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cruft.★Trekker (talk) 13:53, 31 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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of doom 3 demons → Doom 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no list of demons at the target article, unnecessary redirect. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of enemies). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Cruft.★Trekker (talk) 13:53, 31 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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MG-88 Enforcer → Doom 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (non-notable weapon). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:30, 30 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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• G Horned Owl → Great horned owl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't seem particularly logical to abbreviate the first word in this manner. Hog Farm _Talk 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of examples of it being abbreviated this way or as "G. Horned Owl", e.g. [3], [4], [5] (p. 14), [6], [7], [8] (p. 4). Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because a word is commonly abbreviated to its initial doesn't mean that every context in which it's regularly done should result in a redirect. Birdwatchers routinely abbreviate common words because they tend to keep records in the field, where time and space are at a premium. I've routinely abbreviated "Great Blue Heron" as "GBH" or Red-Winged Blackbird as "RWB", but that doesn't mean I'd consider using those as search terms in Wikipedia—and it's very unlikely anyone else will either. We don't need redirects like "G. blue heron", "G. egret", "G. grey owl", "G. kiskadee", "G. knot", "G. prairie chicken", "G. scaup", "G. spotted woodpecker", "G. yellowlegs", or any of the dozens of others that begin with "Great", "Greater", "Green", "Grey", "Glaucus" or "Golden", to say nothing of other common words in bird names. This would just result in the creation hundreds or thousands of such redirects that would never be used—and require two separate versions, with and without a period—plus variants like "G. H. Owl", "G H Owl", "GH Owl", "GHO", "G.H.O.", etc. P Aculeius (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's evidence. Harmless redirect, and unlike what P Aculeius suggests, this redirect has received a decent number of pageviews – which translate into readers helped. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't! Did you just say that to see if anybody would check? In the last 90 days it's received an average of zero daily page views; it had precisely one page view before it was nominated for deletion—and who knows why that reader ended up there; it's not likely anyone was searching for it. This is an absolutely useless redirect that assists no-one. P Aculeius (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One pageview in 90 days is probably anomalous considering that over the (~5.5 year) history of the pageviews tool (the biggest sample size available) the redirect received 250 pageviews – which from experience I know to be a decent number of pageviews. About 50 of those views can be written off as bot-made. That leaves 200 cases where a reader was helped by this redirect. By keeping this redirect, more readers are helped. By deleting this redirect, what will be gained? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are at least a bit off: about 10% of those page views have come since the redirect was nominated for deletion. But even supposing that there have been 230 page views since 2015 (compared with over two million for "great horned owl"), that works out to an average of just under one view every 8 1/2 days. I doubt very much that readers were helped by this, because I can't see even that many typing "G Horned" into the search window—it's more likely that they were looking for something else containing "G H" and stumbled across this redirect by accident. If it weren't there, they'd have been more likely to find their intended target, even if that target were the owl itself. Nobody who knows that it's a great horned owl will be frustrated by the lack of an abbreviation for great—they can just type it in. And there are almost certainly no readers who know that there's a 'g' but don't know what it stands for—if by chance someone searches for "greater horned owl" they'll still get the right article at the top of the search results. P Aculeius (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if any of those other terms are used and unambiguous (I've not looked) then yes, those redirects should be created - redirects are cheap and having hundreds if not thousands of ones that assist readers is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question isn't whether a word can be abbreviated, or whether it frequently is abbreviated. It's whether readers are likely to search for it that way. And as the page views show, they're clearly not in this case. Over the last 90 days, "great horned owl" has received an average of 1,100 daily page views; "G Horned Owl" has an average of 0—and in fact just one view prior to being nominated for deletion. Yes, redirects are cheap, but they need to have at least plausible usefulness, and this one doesn't. WP:UNHELPFUL is more on point: "President" is often abbreviated to "Pres" (or "Prez"), but we don't have or need "Pres of the United States", because that's not how people search. We don't need "G Britain" or "N York" to help people find those articles, and we don't need every possible abbreviation for various types of birds to be redirects to them. Do we have similar redirects for other owls? I can't find any. Birdwatchers use hundreds of abbreviations for informal records, especially in the field, but few if any of them are redirects in Wikipedia, because nobody uses them as search terms. This one only exists due to a long-vanished user who created six articles or redirects with implausible titles—all of which have recently been deleted, except for "yaugt", which considering the circumstances isn't very plausible either. "G Horned Owl" certainly isn't helpful to our readers. P Aculeius (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a common abbreviation. CrazyBoy826 20:19, 30 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 13:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q2) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q3) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q4) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q1) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q2) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q3) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q4) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2023 Q1) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2023 Q2) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2023 Q3) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2023 Q4) → Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as misleading because the target does not discuss future planned events of Joe Biden's presidency. There are a number of scenarios in which Joe Biden would not serve a full term, so these also seem too crystal ball-y. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Delete all as per Tavix, but perhaps not the 2021 Q2 redirect. Disclosure, I had created the 2021 Q2 redirect, so I had a notification on my talk page. That one could occur immediately in 3 months so keep that one. Starzoner (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix; there's no appropriate target for these redirects. Note that the 2021 Q2 redirect has received 400 pageviews in the short time it has been around, presumably because of a succession box link in Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q1). Given that that link currently confuses readers by directing them back to Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency, deleting the 2021 Q2 redirect is more urgent than deleting the others. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom until each respective titular quarter starts, they haven't WP:CRYSTALlized yet. Also, I found Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q4), which I'm adding here (and should be deleted as well). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per WP:CRYSTAL. There's no content at all on these time periods in the Joe Biden presidency at the target article, and there won't be any relevant content until he's made some plans made at the minimum. We don't even know if Biden will still be president in 3 years time, so these redirects to a timeline are premature. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete" per above. CrazyBoy826 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very unhelpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:26, 2 February 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.