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, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Economic suicide → bankruptcy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was originally made as a redirect to suicide, but was retargeted to bankruptcy by an IP in 2019 with an edit summary saying that they really didn't think either target was much good. The overwhelming primary use of this phrase that I can find relates to economic policies (e.g. Is country X committing economic suicide by implementing policy Y). I was unable to find a good target for this, so am listing it here for discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think this is a real term, if it is, correct me. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:41, 23 March 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, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suojärvi' → Suoyarvi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This looks like a leftover from page move vandalism reversion; delete unless this spelling can be attested. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not really page move vandalism per say, as Suojärvi is the name of this place in Finnish. I don't understand why this redirect has an unnecessary apostrophe at the end of it though, judging by the copy paste move in the page history of Suojärvi they might have been trying to move the page to that title but found the redirect in the way? either way it's unlikely someone is going to be searching for this place with an extra apostrophe on the end. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. I'll invoke G2 as the criterion that most surely applies. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Redirect to existing page (with similar but shortened name). → Cervelat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an unnecessary redirect to existing page (with similar but shortened name). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G1 / G2 / probably G3. This really didn't need an RfD discussion, there are multiple speedy criteria it would have fallen under. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 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 03:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Hyper-Authoritarianism → Ingsoc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither the target nor any other article mentions "hyper-authoritarianism", and the fact that this redirect was created immediately in draftspace doesn't quite make it more useful. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G8, the target file has been deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Italian immigrants to Canada vis Pier 21.jpg → File:Italian immigrants to Canada via Pier 21.jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alexis Jazz under criterion R3 FASTILY 03:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @J947: I'd usually agree, but this file was uploaded recently: "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created." I wouldn't have requested deletion if the file had been around for a while. But this is WP:SNOW now as it'll be deleted anyway because the file doesn't have a valid fair use rationale now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:21, 22 March 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, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Album cover of Nepi the Polynesian man.jpg → File:Album cover of Nephi the Polynesian man.jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alexis Jazz under criterion R3 FASTILY 03:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am the uploader. I made a typo in the file name, "Nepi" instead of the correct "Nephi". Users looking for this would typically know the correct spelling of Nephi Hannemann's given name. I do not believe there is justification for keeping a redirect due to a typographical error. Peaceray (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @J947: I'd usually agree, but this file was uploaded recently: "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created." I wouldn't have requested deletion if the file had been around for a while. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note that suppressredirect in practice gets used way more liberal than this, for example by AmandaNP [1], Kashmiri [2] or similar to this case by CptViraj [3]. (recently uploaded, typo, uploader request), DMacks [4], The Earwig [5], Godsy [6] (Godsy specifically mentions "suppress redirect as rename suggest on orig. upload date (i.e. recent creation"), and Adamstom.97 [7]. Kailash29792 just uses G7 which Fastily had granted. Should I have used G7 instead? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not ping admins like this, it's disruptive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AmandaNP: I pinged page movers who performed similar moves while suppressing redirect, I haven't checked who is or isn't an admin. Nothing disruptive about that, only helpful to reach consensus. If you disagree, feel free to block me as looking at your user rights, apparently you can. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to block you over nothing. I'm simply asking for you not to ping users like this who have absolutely no involvement in your dispute with others. Your canvassing people inappropriately. Again though, I'm asking you not to, and I'm not going to block you to be absolutely clear. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "canvassing", "disruptive", you know how to make friends. I don't give a damn about this dispute. Keep the redirect, delete the redirect, I don't give a rat's ass whatsoever. I'm pinging you and others to educate and to help clarify this for the future. Maybe you guys now all realize you have been erroneously suppressing redirects and you'll change that in the future. Or you can explain that actually this practice is totally standard. Or that it's backed up by some other policy I am unaware of. Or that the moves you performed are actually different for some reason. Either way we could collectively move forward, and whether you agree the redirect should be deleted or not I don't care in the slightest. I am not, and have never been, interested in giving special treatment to admins. I pinged some file movers, I don't care what other permissions you might have and didn't bother to check. You showed up in the move log and used suppressredirect, that's why I pinged you and you were absolutely free to simply ignore my ping. It would be most kind if you could refrain from your wild accusations. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alexis Jazz: You might like to use ((np)) template in the future to suppress pings. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kashmiri: Thanks for the suggestion, but my pings were on purpose. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't deal with album covers or song titles. What do you expect from me here, precisely? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You moved File:Unite.svg to File:Unite the Union.svg without leaving a redirect. This is actually slightly different from the other examples I had linked, but still, you suppressed the redirect despite no exception being available in WP:FILEREDIRECT. The move is obviously justified under WP:FMV#7 and I actually agree with the suppression of the redirect in this case as it's plausible that a file with that exact name gets uploaded to Commons some day, which would allow deletion of the redirect under WP:CSD#R4. But since such a file doesn't exist yet, there is (afaik) no justification in policy to suppress the redirect. Short of WP:Ignore all rules, of course. So we (as in, file movers as a group) have something to think about. Clarify policy about when redirect suppression or CSD tagging is appropriate? Change how we work? At least write down somewhere that common practice and written policy don't match? Any input is appreciated. What happened herel; namely Fastily removing my CSD request because they were screamed at, me questioning what "recently" even means then, and us discussing a redirect that is an obvious typo, will not aid anyone in finding the file, was recently created and simply serves no purpose whatsoever.. We really shouldn't have to waste time on this, but since somebody screamed at Fastily we should try to do what's needed to prevent that in the future. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with the R3 nomination because I don't think the redirect is an implausible typo – it's just one missing letter. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had I performed the move, I likely would have suppressed it per speedy deletion criterion R3 or possibly even G6 (i.e. uncontroversial maintenance). It is certainly recently created and it is implausible because of the namespace in which it resides (i.e. implausible has a different meaning concerning mainspace vs. file redirects). E.g. it is unlikely anyone would search for a file by name because we do not index them topically through a standardized method. There was a discussion that happened somewhere related to this, at least tangentially, but cannot put my finger on it offhand. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: I think an example of a plausible typo is Bil Clinton. Someone could try to look that up or link it (which actually happened), so it's plausible. As Godsy explained above, effectively any typo in a filename is implausible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I look that these arguments above and I think they miss the point. Speedy deletion should not apply when a policy-based reason for keeping applies (WP:FILEREDIRECT). I feel like that should be codified somewhere to prevent gaming the system, but as it stands common sense applies. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I usually leave redirects. But regarding the specific case for which I was pinged, File:Strongsville_High_School_logo.jpg, I left some details in the history indicating a back-story not easily visible here (commons admins feel free to ask me). Within the scope of this file's life on enwiki, I am the uploader and only contributor, and did the page-move/suppress-redirect action four minutes after initial upload. I may as well have just uploaded it at that new name directly? The footnote at WP:G7 (preserve functionality of inbound links) also does not seem to apply: as a non-free image, I don't think we are legally allowed to be the host of it for off-wiki reuse. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete since the creator and the only contributor to this redirect was the one who requested speedy delete in the first place, and has requested deletion at this discussion. This is a clear cut case of G7, and it was a clear cut case of G7 before this discussion even started (even if tagged with a different criteria). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7 doesn't apply because For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. Please read the criteria before making such a statement. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor who uploaded the file and who made every edit to it apart from moving it has voted for deletion above. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Peaceray is the only substantive contributor to the image itself, and they want it deleted. For the redirect, the only substantive contribution was Alexis Jazz creating it when renaming the image. Both Peaceray and Alexis Jazz want it deleted, so it's a classic case of G7. I know the criteria bruh. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh... I feel obliged to point out it still technically wouldn't qualify for G7 because the mover still wasn't the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. But more importantly, it was a clear cut case of G7 before this discussion even started is untrue because Alexis Jazz wouldn't have known that Peaceray supported deletion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it may be helpful to point out the reason why WP:FILEREDIRECT exists. (Steel1943, sadly inactive, likely knows more about this than me.) That reason is quite surprising (it is rather old but presumably still true). The MediaWiki developers dislike deletion of such redirects, to the point where one of them threatened to block anyone who deleted those redirects. See this short discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: See also WP:R#HARMFUL. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are really bad at making arguments, you know that right? Linking to a discussion that ends with the suggestion to speedy delete the exact same kind of redirect that you are so desperate to save. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, based on this discussion it's no surprise that there's some suggestion to speedy delete such redirects. In case you didn't grasp the point of my comment, a guideline supports such redirects being kept and since the reason for it isn't well-documented, I decided to find it. Turns out a MediaWiki developer threatened he will personally block anyone deleting such redirects due to possibility of old links. I find that a pretty strong incentive to keep such redirects. Considering that interpretation adheres with other guidelines such as K4, I think that advocating to delete this redirect is rather short-sighted. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G7 since the editor who moved the page, and all editors of the page before the page move, agree with its deletion. That being said, until Peaceray supported deletion here it would not have been eligible for G7. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peaceray. The file is recently uploaded, so I don't see any harm in deleting the redirect. (For transperancy: I also came from the ping) -- CptViraj (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do people not care that redirects like these are cheap and helpful? Do people not care about multiple guidelines explicitly saying to keep such redirects because deleting them is harmful? Do people not care about a MediaWiki developer – the sort of person who knows more about this than anyone else – threatening to block editors who delete such redirects? I am finding it really hard to grasp any logic around how deleting this kind of redirect is beneficial to the encyclopedia. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:56, 28 March 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1926 French Championships – Women's Doubles → 1926 French Championships (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1925 French Championships – Women's Doubles → 1925 French Championships (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1921 U.S. National Championships – Women's Doubles → 1921 U.S. National Championships (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1926 French Championships – Mixed Doubles → 1926 French Championships (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1925 French Championships – Mixed Doubles → 1925 French Championships (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2002 US Open – Boys' Singles → 2002 US Open (tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Standard practice in the Tennis WikiProject is to not redirect missing draw articles. They mislead readers viewing event-specific navboxes (e.g. Template:French Open men's doubles drawsheets) into thinking articles exist for those years. Also, in each case the redirect is circularly linked on the target page (WP:SELFRED), which is confusing for readers. Somnifuguist (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The circular links are in the standard infobox for tennis tournaments (Template:Infobox tennis tournament year), which links to every event within a given tournament irrespective of whether articles have been created for them yet. Looking at 2002 US Open (tennis) for example, the infobox has red links for Girls' Singles and Girls' and Boys' Doubles, and blue links to every other event. Of these blue links, only Boys' Singles is a redirect, so it is confusing not only because it is circular, but also because its behaviour doesn't match that of the other links in that very infobox. The navboxes are a similar story, with these redirects being the only such in a sea of blue links to existing event articles. Out of a thousand or so Grand Slam events that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for yet, these 6 are the only ones that are redirected. In a vacuum they are reasonable, but given the long-established way in which the tennis project has set up tournament articles, they are both confusing to readers and in their exceptionality a nuisance to editors such as myself who try to maintain articles in this space. Somnifuguist (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with Somnifuguist that these redirects are confusing, particularly if they are selected from the same article to which they redirect. Therefore reason 2 per WP:R#DELETE applies.--Wolbo (talk) 11:16, 5 April 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 2021 Boston mayoral election#Declared. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• John Barros → 2013 Boston mayoral election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'd propose deleting this redirect altogether. A 2013 AFD had it retained as a redirect to the 2013 Boston mayoral election, in which he was a candidate. He is now a candidate again in the 2021 Boston mayoral election, and it seems bizarre that this would redirect to one over the other.

Very few articles link to this, and none of them would be harmed by the elimination of that link. SecretName101 (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Barros is already a declared candidate, retarget to 2021 Boston mayoral election, and add a note in his description there that he was an unsuccessful candidate in the 2013 Boston mayoral election. BD2412 T 05:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Perennial candidates are quite an iffy issue for this reason. I'd agree with BD2412 and retarget to the recent election. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear case of WP:XY in that this redirect could equally target both articles, so it should be deleted. 053pvr (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 2021 Boston mayoral election for which he is a current candidate. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. As an aside: while this is the second time that Barros is running for mayor of Boston, he is not a "perennial candidate" (cf. Althea Garrison). Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2021 Boston mayoral election#Declared where there is information on him with a note that he also stood in 2013. I'm not sure how deleting the redirect would be helpful here. There's a line about Barros at Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative#Notable alumni and key figures but it doesn't add much compared to his profile on the 2021 election's article. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY, unless he wins. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2021 Boston mayoral election#Declared, where I had done what was suggested earlier and added a note about his 2013 run, including a link there (but somehow forgot to !vote then). Since this is in place, WP:XY does not apply because there is one location where you can find out everything noteworthy he has done, and can click through to find information on his earlier run if wanted. This is a much better solution than search results. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:30, 26 March 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mahlon (Sandy) Apgar, IV, CRE, FRICS, FIOD, FRSA → Mahlon Apgar IV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects are cheap, but the odds of this sequence of characters ever being typed as an article title are infinitesimal. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Woah! This seems WP:DAFTworthy. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a limit to how cheap a redirect can be. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 27 March 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. There is agreement that since there is only a single Wikipedia article that matches the title, that this page should redirect there. Any editor can change it to a disambiguation page once other articles exist. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Latomus was a disambiguation page with only one valid entry and was therefore redirected to that one entry Jacobus Latomus. Unfortunately, Jacobus is not the meaning that most mentions of "Latomus" in Enwiki refer to. There are over 200 mentions, many of which are citations that refer to the journal, about which we do not have an article. I suggest that we delete because although there are many pages of Search results, a Search is better than the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create a stub for La Revue Latomus? And for good measure for Bernhard Latomus, who was the other entry on the old dab page? I don't think any actual case for deletion has been made here. Counting mentions: is that really a good enough reason for bringing up a page here? I mean, having the page made into a genuine disambiguation page would actually be constructive. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redabify. I'm in favour of deleting otherwise viable redirects from surnames if the search results will be relevant. But they aren't here – almost everything is mentions of the journal within citations, which form part of article text that arguably shouldn't be displayed in searches at all. Given that Latomus is the surname of several apparently equally prominent Renaissance scholars, who lived in the same broad region and worked in related fields, it's likely that readers may be looking for any one of them when searching for the name. It's best, therefore, to present them with a disambiguation page, even if all the other entries will at present only link to the corresponding articles on the French and German Wikipedias. I've drafted one below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless or until any of the other articles get created, the current target is the only valid one on English Wikipedia, and this will continue to be a useful ((R from surname)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per Tavix. This can become a disambiguation page when relevant articles are created on the English Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 04:27, 14 March 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 Faerûn#Northern regions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anauroch → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target - seems like it's not particularly important to the Forgotten Realms universe Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an important in-universe location, but in this instance a redirect is best point towards the article about the continent it is located within, where it is mentioned: Faerûn#Northern_regions. The Forgotten Realms article seems to have very little mention of the setting's in-universe elements in general. Haleth (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Faerûn as per above. BOZ (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Faerûn#Northern_regions as per above. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 22 March 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 Restored article, without prejudice against sending it to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Snooker lists → Template:Snooker lists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bad XNR - should delete to encourage potential creation of a "list of lists" about Snooker, if wanted. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was an article years ago, multiple times. Most recently, in 2012, the article was redirected to the template by Armbrust as totally redundant to template. So deleting this redirect to encourage article creation is unfounded and it being brought up as the sole argument for deletion of this redirect shows that other two participants in this discussion haven't undertaken basic checks as to the history of this redirect.
  Template:Snooker lists works just as well as an article would. There's no denying that it would help readers searching up Snooker lists. CNRs are only frowned upon when from a reader-facing namespace to an editor-facing namespace. This redirect is in a reader-facing namespace and targets a reader-facing namespace. Therefore this redirect is definitely not a Bad XNR.
  I encourage Elli and Oiyarbepsy to reconsider their rationales in light of my argument. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J947: there is nothing wrong with a list of lists that is redundant to a template - it's a different way of presenting the information. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with a list of lists that is redundant to a template, but it isn't too helpful. The point of redirects is to act as a navigational aid for readers. I don't see the point in deleting this redirect to encourage potential creation of a new article when that article wouldn't be too helpful. I also don't really get that deletion encourages potential creation – a Wikipedia editor who wants to create an article about snooker lists won't be put off by the existence of a redirect because that's effectively the same thing as deletion in regards to article creation.
      But I digress. I don't see a case for deletion here. In my mind there are two options – keep as is or restore article. I don't mind which one is taken. But don't delete. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article in the page history, and Retarget Snooker Lists to point at it, without prejudice against sending the article to AfD. I agree that this is a poor XNR and that we should avoid sending readers into template space as much as possible - remember a lot of people who read Wikipedia (as opposed to those who edit it) will not understand wikimarkup, namespaces and may have limited IT skills, many of them will be confused if their search takes them to a page full of technical documentation for templates. Per WP:NOTDUPE it is entirely acceptable to have Templates, categories and lists with overlapping focus and articles, because they all serve distinct navigational purposes and lists generally have greater readability. Also remember that navigational templates do not render properly on the mobile web site (unless they've fixed that since I last checked) so the majority of our readers who come across this redirect will be presented with a broken page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per 86.23, which also resolves the "delete to encourage creation" !votes. Looking over the former article, it was a decent list of lists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Combination of "obvious mistake" and WP:R2. Zero prejudice against recreation pointing to a different or more reasonable location. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1961 United Kingdom local elections → Template:1961 United Kingdom local elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• 1960 United Kingdom local elections → Template:1960 United Kingdom local elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1962 United Kingdom local elections → Template:1962 United Kingdom local elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bad XNR - should delete to encourage potential article/list creation. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found the related 1962 United Kingdom local elections, which I've added here. Also, I think this should be merged with the one above, since they have the exact same rationale. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G6 as unambiguously created in error. Template pages that were accidentally made in article space and moved to the correct namespace 10 minutes later. I don't think these plausible search terms should be sending readers into template space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 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.