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 21:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Business Queensland → Queensland Government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Agriculture Victoria → Victoria State Government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly do exist:

• https://www.business.qld.gov.au/
• https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/

and I see them all the time providing agricultural alerts and information. Is that the justification needed? Invasive Spices (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive Spices The issue is that these government bodies are not discussed at all at the target, making the redirects of little use to readers. If a duly sourced mention can be added to the target, the redirects should be kept. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why that's necessary. There are lots of redirects that are just there for the future. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are mentions of both, and uses of both as references, throughout the encyclopedia. I suspect they could have their own articles. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 5 August 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) 19:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am always right → Self-righteousness  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could equally refer to Narcissism or related personality disorders. I think that deletion is the way to go here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Narcissism is different than self righteousness. Instead of this a redirect from I am always right attitude can be created too. Crashed greek (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too ambiguous. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Firstly, while obviously someone may use this expression, it doesn't have enough of a status as a recognised name to refer to an idea for anyone to be likely to search for it. Secondly, and more importantly, "I am always right does not suggest self-righteousness, it suggests arrogant belief in one's own intelligence, which is completely different. JBW (talk) 09:01, 3 August 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) 19:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cobra shape body → Body shape#Terminology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor likely to be, since it is more a description of posture (stooped) than of shape. Or maybe Scoliosis? Another pathology? Not a generic body-shape in the scope of the target article. Delete in the absence of an explanation of what the creator had in mind. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many references like [1] on the net. Crashed greek (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That refers to a Cobra Back. Weak delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. We don't have the grammatically-correct cobra-shaped body. What is cobra-shaped anyway? Cobras are fairly flexible. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 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. ✗plicit 09:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sena Public School & College, Savar → Savar Cantonment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It should be deleted as the two article is totally different. The redirect was a article of an educational institution and the destination article is not about an educational institution and related to army. Moreover, the article containing the redirect may be recreated.Zarif1511 (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This redirect was created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sena Public School & College, Savar Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The school is not notable, so it should not be the subject of a stand alone article. The school is mentioned in the article about the geographic area where it is located, Savar Cantonment, and being redirected to such an article is a common alternative to deletion. The article should not be recreated, and judging by Zarif1511's efforts at Draft:Sena Public School and College, Savar, will not be. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Because in the target article, there is no description about the title. And the page can be recreated when verified sources will be available. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarif1511 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the education subsection in the targeted article you will find the name of the school. Sena is Bengali for soldier/Army, this is a school located inside Savar cantonment and run by the army.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator has been trying to create the article on the school but unfortunately the school is not notable and deleting this redirect would not help in creating the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 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 Floods in India#In the 21st century. ✗plicit 09:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 India flood → 2021 Uttarakhand flood  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also refer to 2021 Maharashtra floods Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Floods in India#In the 21st century where I've added a mention of the Maharashtra floods. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. I had created the redirect when the Uttarakhand flood was the only one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Floods in India#In the 21st century: multiple 2021 Indian flood articles exist -- DaxServer (talk) 19:53, 29 July 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. ✗plicit 09:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Democrats Make Sweep Of State Offices → Dewey Defeats Truman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_15#DEMOCRATS_MAKE_SWEEP_OF_STATE_OFFICES from last year, where a similar redirect with different capitalization due to being overly vague. Hog Farm _Talk 05:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too vague to refer to any one article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the consensus of the previous discussion that determined this phrase is far too ambiguous to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 29 July 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. ✗plicit 09:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Causes of the Civil War → Origins of the American Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unduly narrow target, as the ACW isn't the primary topic for Civil War. Hog Farm _Talk 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 21#The Civil War where it was agreed that there is no primary topic for "The Civil War" (in the intervening decade Civil war (disambiguation) has been moved to Civil War). Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since obviously it should redirect to the English Civil War. Or the Nigerian one? Or etc etc.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Interestingly, if this were Causes of civil war, we could handle that (Civil war#Causes). Between the definite article and the capitalization, though, that's probably not what a reader is looking for. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 2 August 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. Thanks to Matthiaspaul for making it. I hope this won't seem like a WP:SUPERVOTE, but there wasn't clear consensus for any other outcome, and as an otherwise uninvolved user, this seems like the clear best outcome for now. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sulfan → Sulfur trioxide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect redirect: Sulfan is not a common alternative name of sulfur trioxide (see e.g. CAS Common Chemistry). Leyo 08:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was historically. Sulfan referred to SO₃ stabilised to give a room temperature liquid (gamma form) which was easy to handle and store. I think the stabiliser was B₂O₃. It's popular in the literature between 1950-1980 and then vanishes. I've never been able to figure out why. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless mentioned. There are currently no instances of the word (in this context, the instance at Qapqal News is a transliteration of Xibe) on the English Wikipedia that I can find so anyone encountering this term and looking to find information about it will be confused. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Properly research and retarget. The term "Sulfan" was mentioned as an alternative name in an older version of the article Sulfur trioxide. There is no requirement for a redirect term to be mentioned in an article (although this is beneficial in many cases), redirects just need to be useful, and if Sulfan would be (or has been) an alternative name for sulfur trioxide, the redirect would rightfully point to the article regardless of if the term is mentioned in the article or not.

A quick Google search proves that the term in fact exists and can be found mentioned in various scientific articles and books of the 1950s up into the 1990s era. Also, I have personally heard the term numerous times in the past, but I'm no chemicist and no expert on the topic and therefore do not know exactly what it refers (or referred) to. The German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page de:Sulfan with three entries which are all different from the target of the redirect in the English Wikipedia, including Hydrogen sulfide and compounds of Sulfide (organic); the latter article even mentions the term Sulfan as the current-nomenclature name for thioether. So, it appears as if the redirect was pointing to the wrong (or at least not the best) article (to be verified) and needs to be either retargeted or changed into a disambiguation page, following the example of the German Wikipedia.

As a general remark, given how easy it is to prove that the term is not made up I consider the proposals for deletion as harmful to the project and I'm disappointed about the careless attitude some editors exhibit. Searching for the best possible solution is our shared duty in this project. While I too do not know (at least not at present) which of the three possible targets is the correct (or most suitable) one for this term, it is absolutely obvious after just a few minutes of research on the term that it is possible to find out (and an expert in the field probably already knows) and that deletion is certainly not the proper option at all here. We are an encyclopedia aiming to document the knowledge of the world past and present and this can only be achieved by properly researching and, where necessary, correcting and improving contents and infrastructure.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can confirm that this is not an accepted alternative name for sulfur trioxide according to CAS (via SciFinder) and PubChem. CAS reports it as an alternative name for a mixture of methanol, methanethiol, and dimethylsulfide. Based on Google, it seems like a somewhat ambiguous term, and in any case there is no content on WP to point to that would be helpful to users. Delete to defer to search results and/or encourage article creation of this term applies to any notable topics (I doubt that this is the case here, however). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CAS does report nisso sulfan as an alternative name for sulfur trioxide (see link above; also on SciFinder), perhaps related to Project Osprey's comment above. Perhaps sulfan was historically used by itself, but it would be good to see some evidence of that and perhaps mention at target. If so, I would support keeping as a historical name that one might encounter. (pending this, the Nisso sulfan should be created as a redirect too). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I am not sure why partial title matches like Endosulfan or Sulfanyl are not coming up in searches for sulfan, even when using advanced search. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there is also de:Disulfan (and de:Rohsulfan/raw sulfan?), at least in the German WP (the corresponding English article does not mention these terms, though).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the most pertinent information I have found is further down at the Pubchem page in section 7.5 indicating it is a trademarked term for the stabilized formulation as Project Osprey mentions. So I think we can keep and mention at target with proper references such as this. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or changing this into a disambiguation page. See also my comment below. I meanwhile tend more towards a disambiguation page, because it makes it easier to document/resolve possible singular/plural or locale-specific differences in its meaning. Also, disambiguation pages can have a "See also" section, were similar terms like Endosulfan, Sulfanyl, or de:Disulfan could be mentioned as well. This would certainly help readers running into the term somewhere to find what they are actually looking for.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a brand name for a formulation of sulfur trioxide; a common practice in chemistry Wikipedia is to redirect brand names to standard names (for example, Lipitor redirects to atorvastatin) unless the brand is notable enough by itself to merit a separate article.

--(unsigned by Itub 2021-07-21T19:37:45‎)

• Comment Asking for assistance in the German Wikipedia (de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Mabschaaf#Sulfan), I have been made aware of a recent discussion (de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Chemie#Sulfane) in their "Project Chemistry" regarding an article de:Sulfane ([2]) (plural form), now changed into a redirect to thioether. Actually, that discussion is what led to our RfD here, however, more information has accumulated there meanwhile.

According to them, "Sulfan(e)" (plural) is current official nomenclature (de:Nomenklatur (Anorganische Chemie)) for what was previously colloquially called thioether, although the latter term is still more commonly used (hence the topic can be found under this name rather than Sulfan).

One of the participants there found a WP:RS indicating that Sulfan (singular) was a trade name by Baker & Adamson for a B₂O₃ stabilized Sulfur trioxide:

Habashi, Fathi; Dugdale, Raymond (June 1973) [1972-11-06]. "The Action of Sulfur Trioxide on Chalcopyrite". Metallurgical and Materials Transactions. B-4: 1553–1556. Bibcode:1973MT......4.1553H. doi:10.1007/BF02668007. p. 1553: Sulfur trioxide used was pure, colorless liquid SO3 marketed under the trade name Sulfan by Baker and Adamson

So, the original redirect wasn't invalid, but it might be even better to solve this by introducing a disambiguation page.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above investigation is all very interesting, but largely irrelevant as there is still no mention of the word "Sulfan" in a relevant context anywhere in article space on en.wp so there is nothing to redirect to and no scope for a disambiguation page. My recommendation to delete still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Mentioned term "Sulfan" and "Nisso sulfan" in Sulfur trioxide, "Sulfane" in Thioether/Sulfide (organic), and "Disulfan" in Disulfiram. Added multiple RS were available. Created disambiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:26, 3 August 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. ✗plicit 09:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Billy McKinlay(Footballer) → Billy McKinlay (footballer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Note: while I am listed as page creator, G7 does not apply here as I only moved the page to a better title. This should be deleted per WP:UNNATURAL, and since the page was only at this title for less than an hour, I think the risk of breaking external links is low. Hog Farm _Talk 04:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, do delete that for sure. It only existed before it was fixed as a mistake. -boldblazer (talk) 01:31, 30 July 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 20:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 01189998819991197253 → List of The IT Crowd episodes#ep2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 0 118 999 881 999 119 7253 → List of The IT Crowd episodes#ep2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is the fictional phone number for emergency services for the "Calamity Jen" episode. It's mentioned a few times in that one. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty well-known reference, per Angus. While it would be better if it were mentioned at the target, it's not like it's an ambiguous term, and it gets quite healthy pageviews (2,802 since 2015). If a reader's searching this to know where the reference comes from, this answers their question, even if only implicitly. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and delete 0 118 999 881 999 119 7253 too on same grounds. Every line or reference in a show does not warrant a redirect. This one happens to be a long string of numbers which I cannot imagine anyone still has memorized. Wikipedia is not a search engine, and I cannot fathom what someone is hoping to get by putting that number in the search bar. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've bundled that redirect. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And for what it's worth, I do think that a fair number of people have this memorized. (https://twitter.com SLASH search?q=01189998819991197253&f=live) The existence of a jingle helps. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated! And perhaps I was off base with that, then. But, for example, Now go home and get your shinebox is one of my personal favorite quotes, from Goodfellas - but no page. Also, searching almost any well known lyrics will not lead to a redirect (you can probably find exceptions if you really want). The point is - quotes and lyrics are generally off limits because they could lead to literally endless redirects. This is especially true when there is no mention at the target. It's certainly all well meaning, but I still stand by my ~!vote. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but verify in prose. The only problem with the redirect is that it's not verified anywhere in the text. @El cid, el campeador: I do tend to agree that an indefinite amount of redirects should not be created for lyrics and movie quotes, but there are a fair few that do exist (take, for example: "I have had it with these motherf**king snakes on this motherf**king plane" from Snakes on a Plane, or any of the numerous ones here). We even have an rcat for such redirects: ((R from quotation)). I guess they should all be assessed on a case by case basis, in order for such discussions to be as balanced as possible. (Note: I would've replied above if it wasn't for the relist notice). Sean Stephens (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there anything speaking against replying before the relist notice? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not actually sure, I just thought it was better to be safe than sorry. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless and until the number is mentioned. As such, it's an easter egg unlikely to be of any help to any reader that couldn't find the list of episodes anyway—or likely to disappoint a reader looking for more information. I've only seen a few episodes of the show myself and don't know whether a mention of the number there would pass muster. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although this seems to be kind of an insider joke for fans of this series, since it is known in these communities and used, other people might run into it and wonder what it is about. Therefore, such quotes/phrases can serve as incoming links into our encyclopedia, redirecting the user to the proper context. Ideally, it would be mentioned in the target article, but there is no requirement for redirects to be mentioned in target articles, they just need to be useful. So, for as long as this entry does not conflict with another entry of the same name we should have it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:38, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Grounded videos → Vyond#"Grounded" videos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not at the target and any attempts to add it to the target article have all been unsourced. Redirect title is ambiguous anyway. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not true that "any attempts to add it to the target article have all been unsourced". Grounded video coverage was in the article for years with this Geek.com article -- for example, you can find it there a year ago. I'm not sure when that source got removed from the article, but a basic section on grounded videos should be restorable with that archive version of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored target section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Vyond article might merit a sourced sentence or two on the videos, but a section is not necessary, and as such a redirect is not necessary either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Begrudgingly, as it's a known concept mainly connected to Vyond, and if this rd is released to article creation, then it would otherwise have to be protected to prevent a re-creation loop. Nate • (chatter) 09:47, 29 July 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 Wikipedia:Banning policy. ✗plicit 09:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BANHAMMER → Wikipedia:Blocking policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title is ambiguous. Banhammers being thrown occurs when a user is being banned. Since on Wikipedia we treat blocks and bans differently, I think this title should either be redirected to Wikipedia:Banning policy or disambiguated to include both pages. Aasim (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title explicitly uses the word "ban", I think retargeting is the best option. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 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! 09:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SAIA → Australian Institute of Architects  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Air Accidents Investigation Branch#Space Accident Investigation Authority as the AAIB has now been designated SAIA for the UK. I cannot see how SAIA should redirect to an institute that would properly be initialised "AIA". Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to retarget on the grounds of greater notability, but it needs a For template (if not DAB), as SAIA refers to the South Australian Institute of Architects (see History section). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (drafted) as there's also the South African Institute of Architects and a bunch of topics named Saia in normal case. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this disambiguation. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support this. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate using the drafted page below the redirect. I don't think there's a primary topic for this. For instance, in America this seems to most commonly refer to the trucking company. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 30 July 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.