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 Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Medical condition classification and resources - horizontal test → User:Bluerasberry/Medical condition classification and resources - horizontal test-2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bad XNR from a move; no transclusions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:58, 3 June 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 Barrett–Crane model. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Louis Crane → List of loop quantum gravity researchers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subject isn't mentioned in target article; redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation. (Note a small stub article was BLAR'd some time ago.) Brycehughes (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Barrett–Crane model, a notable model co-published by a Louis Crane (can't say if it's the same Louis Crane, not enough info). We should also take a look at John W. Barrett, a stub that is about two different people with the same name. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I split that Barrett article, although to be honest I'm not entirely sure this one is notable. Brycehughes (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Barrett–Crane model per squirrel. Alternatively restore the pre-redirect stub since we don't know why it was BLAR'd. Jay (talk) 17:24, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Helene Berner" → Helene Berner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, less pageviews than usual though. I assume that some old links form 1 minute after creation based on these redirects. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Helene Berner", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping. Not intended title or stylization. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gwenda Hawkes" → Gwenda Hawkes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pretty consistent stuff. It's a bit odd that these are such consistent numbers, but I'm pretty sure that these are mostly from readers following old links. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Gwenda Hawkes", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I heavily doubt that that amount of people are looking for mentions that way. J947^{'s public account} 22:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I outline here. High pageviews are evidence that this is clogging search results, not that it's helping people (having been at this title for all of a minute pre-move). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't think that those pageviews come from direct-mention searches. See this investigation of sorts I did. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this response to the investigation of sorts I wrote. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gregory Coleman" → Gregory Coleman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title 16 minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ghetto Gastro" → Ghetto Gastro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title within a minute. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, less pageviews but still more than I'd expect. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "George Keats" → George Keats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, best to not harm these readers' navigation. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "George Keats", but a redirect like this is exactly what "harm[s] these readers' navigation", as they are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consistent with thed others below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 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 03:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "François Recanati" → François Recanati  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title four minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pageviews. Harmless; helpful. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "François Recanati", but in this case a redirect like this is exactly the opposite of "[h]armless" and "helpful", as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consistent with the others below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 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 03:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Francis Chickering" → Francis Chickering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible quotation marks; ((R from move)) but the page was moved from this title three minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, decent pageviews presumably from quickly-formed old links. This RfD takes more maintenance than the redirect ever would. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Francis Chickering", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 suggests a good reason why this has any views. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory is sound. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a failed (for me) investigation into these redirect's utility, it can be found here. But that being failed doesn't necessitate that the redirect should be deleted, it was just one way of approaching it. "If this is true, this is true" doesn't necessitate "if this is false, this is false". So on with it:
  If 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory is true, then would it be reasonable for a more popular topic to translate into a more popular direct-mention redirect? Yes – it only makes sense. Well that one's simpler – just do this. Berner, Ghetto Gastro, and Chickering were all created post the start of the time period. Keats' higher pageviews don't translate into higher pageviews for the redirect. And Merle, with the lowest pageviews of the old articles, has the highest pageviews with the quote marks. I hope I'm making some sort of sense. There is no correlation between high, or low, pageviews for the redirect and the article. Given that such correlation would be expected, I think that 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory isn't what's actually happening I never was convinced that 600 people would find direct mentions in that manner in that timeframe. Maybe for a Trump or a Biden, but not for a Frank Merle.
  So I think that old links is the only reasonable cause of the pageviews. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @J947 On the other hand, while the Merle redirect is linked from User:Tamzin/ampersandbox, User:Uanfala/Redirects with quotation marks, and User:Tamzin/Quotation mark redirects, the Keats redirect isn't linked from any of these. I don't know whether, how, or where "old links" could have been made for a redirect known by virtually nobody, but currently, I think all this redirect is is unhelpful and confusing. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? The entries are buried in a long list, and it would be very unlikely for the redirect to receive over 15 pageviews as a combined result of those links. As above, it is very unlikely for those pageviews to come from direct-mention searches, so as such old links is the only viable reason for the pageviews. And it is certain that deleting the access for those external links will inconvenience the readers looking for information on why the link is there. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 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 03:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:What does this refer to? → Template:Clarify  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, not a particularly useful "shortcut" or alternative name. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could be an equally valid shortcut for ((which)), if it were in fact short. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 0 mainspace transclusions. Too verbose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:46, 3 June 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 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:What ? → Template:Clarify  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused; unlikely shortcut. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too vague and not used. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete R3. 0 mainspace transclusions. That extra space at the end makes this an implausible typo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not recently created = not applicable for R3. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:43, 4 June 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 convert to wrapper. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused - should either be made a wrapper template (which would automatically add the page to the Hentai task force) or deleted. As of now, this doesn't adequately tag pages. Given that it hasn't been used, I don't think converting it to a wrapper would be particularly beneficial over deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to wrapper - although it isn't currently used, it would be a useful categorization of articles. The WikiProject has been marked inactive for six years and was adopted into WikiProject Anime and manga around the same time by the same editor who redirected this, but I don't see the harm in keeping this available. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to wrapper per the squirrel. No harm in keeping this around. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 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 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/1 → Help:Talk page/OBT/1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/2 → Help:Talk page/OBT/2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/3 → Help:Talk page/OBT/3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/4 → Help:Talk page/OBT/4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and unnecessary - seem to exist as a misunderstanding of how transclusion works. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:04, 3 June 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) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Protests agianst the Invation of Afganistan → Protests against the war in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as highly implausible misspelling, requiring several typos. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, probably created in error. -- dylx 13:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Far too many errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:37, 10 June 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. I see consensus against deleting this as a one-off. With the potential interest in an RfC, I would not necessarily interpret this discussion as consensus against deleting the batch. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WeWork → WeWork  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary after histmerge. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:G8 (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/WeWork does not exist, and redirecting a talk page to an article is nonsense). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Before draftspace existed, drafts were kept in Wikipedia-talk-space because IPs couldn't create projectspace pages. There are currently thousands of pages titled like this. If we're going to delete them (although I can't imagine why we'd want to, when there might be incoming exlinks), that should probably be an RFC. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin. No benefit to deletion, and even if there were this type of redirect should be discussed as a class first. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw (though I can't close since others supported deletion) - I was unaware of the history of this type of redirect. I'm considering creating an rcat to explain these now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an rcat would be a good idea. Someone could do a one-time bot run to mass-add it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the absence of an RFC on all these redirects as a class. As an archaic and obscure way of handling drafts, maintaining it hold no benefits and does have marginal confusion due to the namespace it's in (eg: it's not a talk page nor related to one). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until an RFC per Tavix decides on what to do with the thousands of such pages. - Jay ^Talk 04:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep largely per Tamzin, it may well be worth discussing the pros and cons of having these, but if we are going to do so, we should do it in a more systematic way than by nominating one arbitrary example for deletion. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamzin —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 10 June 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) 22:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fukuda (video game) → Getsu Fūma Den  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, nor does it appear to be mentioned on the linked jaWiki article. Deelete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no clear purpose. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there might have been a romanization that had Fukuda in the title but the game is not known simply as Fukuda. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:20, 4 June 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 321 (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 3, 2, 1 → El Dorado (24kGoldn album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous song title redirect; recommend retarget to 321 (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing evidence that this is ambiguous between articles, on the dab page it's the only one formatted like this. Possibly ambiguous with On your mark? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's a countdown, such as used for on your mark or takeoff or an explosion, etc. Disambiguate the page -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how I didn't find that page... — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom to 321 (disambiguation) (lead sentence: 3 2 1, or 3, 2, 1 or 3-2-1 may refer to...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. I distinctly remember having typed this comment about this discussion already. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation page per nom. Not enough to make it unique compared to other media titles like 3.2.1. Can create: 3, 2, 1 (song) or 3, 2, 1 (24kGoldn song) as redirects instead. If 3, 2, 1 (song) is created, make a hatnote to the disambiguation page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:24, 4 June 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) 22:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WWE Match Types → Professional wrestling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bizarre template-to-article WP:XNR, I can't see how this would be ever be useful in this form. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- dylx 13:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to have been a navbox for professional wrestling match types evidently made by someone who thought we needed more than one page on that. None of the articles that had been linked from it currently have an equivalent navbox, which suggests that one is not needed. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:02, 3 June 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) 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Latest stable software release/Emacs → Template:Latest stable software release/GNU Emacs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Inops with the reason "Technical reason for deletion: "Latest stable software release" templates are automatically transcluded into their corresponding article's infobox. In this case, however, the article for Emacs is not about a specific implementation of software, but rather a family of similar text editor implementations. Hence I've moved the template from this title to the correct one for the piece of software detailed, GNU Emacs. This redirect, however, causes the template to be still transcluded into the Emacs article's infobox." FASTILY 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this should be a non-controversial deletion, as it's inline with the longstanding note within the Emacs article's infobox:

  <!-- Please don't place a version here, as this article is about all editors in the EMACS family. Instead, you may wish to update or add version information to specific software project articles. -->

that this redirect means isn't followed. --Inops (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons noted - forces incorrect information into articles. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:59, 3 June 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.