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 Chinese language. To address Bibliomaniac15's desire to have a Chinese redirect to Written Chinese, I will take Eviolite's suggestion and create 中文書面語. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 中文 → Written Chinese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not limited to written Chinese. It can be retargeted to Chinese language. CrazyBoy826 02:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Colloquially, 中文 can be used to refer to the language as a whole as the nominator suggests, but I think it's helpful to have a Chinese redirect to Written Chinese. Of the terms out there, 中文 would fit best in that scheme, considering that 文 typically refers to written language, as opposed to 语 referring to spoken language. This is why we already have 汉语 redirecting to Chinese language, for instance. bibliomaniac15 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indeed explained in the edit summary of Special:Diff/580547149. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Chinese language. Yes, 中文 refers to written Chinese more often than 汉语 does, but it can also refer to the spoken language. Note that zh:中文 is a redirect to zh:汉语. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add a hatnote to the more general topic -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be silly to have a hatnote from Written Chinese to Chinese language in order to accommodate a foreign-language redirect pointing to a too-narrow target. Just point the redirect to the more appropriate target instead. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Chinese language per Mx. Granger, particularly regarding the situation on zhwiki. "中文" is not at all unambiguously written-form, especially colloquially. If we want a Chinese-language redirect to Written Chinese, the zhwiki title is zh:中文書面語 / 中文书面语 [literally "Chinese written form language"], and "書面中文"/"书面中文" and "漢語書面語"/"汉语书面语" also appear in its lead. (I also note that that very article says "是由代表中文的汉字组成书面语" [is a written language formed by Chinese characters representing Chinese], where "Chinese" is indeed written as "中文".) Keeping an ambiguous redirect like this is unhelpful and WP:ASTONISHing for people who stumble upon the term, when written or said. eviolite (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Chinese language per Granger and Eviolite. 中文 more commonly refers to the Chinese language in general than its written form. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 10:19, 4 May 2022 (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 14:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Otto von Nostitz → Nostitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There is no article in English Wikipedia; no mention at Nostitz family; and no article in German Wikipedia Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this redirect 15 years ago, can't remember the exact circumstances, and now you want to delete it. Great. I've reverted your deletions at Nostitz. How about creating content instead of removing it? Like many others before and after me, I've stopped contributing because of people like you. So, go on, enjoy yourself.  Matthead  Discuß   13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"People like me" isn't a good reason to stop contributing, but personal attacks, and unsummarised edits that revert legitimate editing without discussion, are. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable names redirecting to disambiguation pages are pernicious. BD2412 T 02:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shouldn't be mentioned at this target anyway as it is a DAB page and this is not an ambiguous term. Could target to Nostitz family if a mention is appropriate but without that delete. A7V2 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2022 (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 restore and redraftify as a straightforward application of WP:BANREVERT. Concerns about the draft itself can be taken to MfD (but keep in mind drafts are not checked for notability or sanity). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:GeorgeNotFound → GeorgeNotFound (Streamer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was made as a result of a unilateral move by a sockpuppet. The notability of this YouTuber has been discussed countless times, and the consensus has always been that existing sources about him are not reliable. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Drafts are a space in which editors write, well, drafts. A redirect in the draft space about a subject that is not the subject of the page the draft redirects to (even if it's a related subject like this one) doesn't make really that much sense to me. Either the draft page should be salted, or be redirected to an encyclopedic article about the subject the draft page was about. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Praxidicae: can we revert the move, instead of the BLAR? And then delete GeorgeNotFound (Streamer) (because of the uppercase disambiguator and because we don't want multiple GeorgeNotFound page titles). Jay (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 26 April 2022 (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 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wonder of Wigtown Wanderers → Dumbledore's Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another redirect that doesn't make any sense. All relevant content seems to have been deleted over the years and we have no coverage of this anywhere. There is a single line stub in the page history claiming that this is a book in the harry potter universe, though I don't think it would have a Snowballs chance in hell of surviving a prod or AFD discussion. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally an uncontested nomination like this would result in deletion, but this redirect is quite old, from 2003, so I'd like more explicit consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and no mention at the target (misleading). From what I read at this wiki, "The Wonder of Wigtown Wanderers was a book written by Wigtown Wanderers fan and noted author Kennilworthy Whisp. It was mentioned promotionally in Quidditch Through the Ages as being by the same author". Veverve (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no mention in enwiki. A reader looking for Wigtown Wanderers will however be redirected to Fictional universe of Harry Potter#Books, and a reader looking for Kennilworthy Whisp is redirected to Quidditch Through the Ages#Kennilworthy Whisp where the Wigtown Wanderers is mentioned. Jay (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2022 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukraine-Russia border crisis → Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete nobody refers to the war as to the 'border crisis'. Balkovec (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think if someone were to search this term, the most helpful article would be Russia–Ukraine border. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, refine to Russia–Ukraine border. Balkovec (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: serves a similar purpose as 2022 Russia-Ukraine crisis + WP:CHEAP ObsidianPotato (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Russia–Ukraine border per Tavix. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom if there is no proper target. The current target does not talk about a border crisis. Oppose targetting to the broad topic Russia–Ukraine border which does not talk about a crisis. Jay (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 26 April 2022 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• L̥̄ → Ring (diacritic)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• R̥̄ → Ring (diacritic)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As with #Ḹ below, an article with an explanation, such as ISO 15919, is probably more useful than an article listing a set of characters with no notes on usage (and even with circular redirects). 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The connected discussion was also relisted, and we haven't reallly had a firm suggestion of what to do at all in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ḹ (Indic) and Ṝ (Indic) respectively. I'm not aware of any uses of these in anything other than ISO transliterations of the two Indic letters. These could be read in IPA as r/l with voicelessness + mid tone, but I doubt such a notation could be relevant for any language, and even if it were we wouldn't have any content about it as its meaning is entirely compositional. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Uanfala. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ḹ → Ḷ  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ṝ → Ṛ  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Probably better to direct to an article explaining these symbols, such as International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration. Note also that Ḹ (Indic) and Ṝ (Indic) exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit biased as the creator of most of the (Indic) pages, but I think redirects to those pages are probably preferable to the transliteration standard, as applying that policy on a broader level will almost immediately run into problems when a character is used in more than one common transcription or transliteration standard. I feel like the 2010 RfD on these pages was tacitly acknowledging this problem when they came up with targeting the redirects at the diacritics. I feel like the only way out of the "exclusionary specific" redirect and the current "inclusive but unsatisfying" redirect is to actually get good information into the diacritics articles about the multiple uses of each of these characters - possibly converting templates like ((Letters with dot)) into a table of transliteration standards with links to the character articles instead of a simple list of letters with a diacritic. At least that way we can get the multitude of transcriptions, transliterations, and other uses out there, while also getting people redirected to pages like Ḹ (Indic) if that's what they are looking for. Or maybe this actually ends up as an argument that these should be a disambiguation page? VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 02:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, I posted this to WikiProject Writing Systems to see if we can't get help putting together something more cogent than I can come up with. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 02:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If we are already making these into pages, why not full articles then? See Ḹ (Q425444) and Ṝ (Q425469). 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not simply redirect to Ḹ (Indic) and Ṝ (Indic)? There doesn't appear to be any Wikipedia content about uses of those letters for any other characters (if there are any in the world?). The wikidata items Ḹ (Q425444) and Ṝ (Q425469) link to a few dedicated articles in other wikis, but I don't see anything there that would be worth recreating here. – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Uanfala, although it may be better to move the pages to remove the unnecessary disambiguators. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:43, 8 May 2022 (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 for now, in absence of a suitable target. I note that there was no discussion of the typo in the former redirect's title. If someone does later decide to recreate the latter page (either as an article or as a redirect to newly-added relevant content), they should consider whether the first, typoed redirect is worth recreating, or better left red (no pun intended). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Stalins's religious views → Joseph Stalin#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Joseph Stalin and religion → Joseph Stalin#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The section which this redirect targets doesn't exist. Upon reviewing the target page, there the word "religion" occurs once, and it's location doesn't seem to contain enough distinct information to rationalize the existence of this redirect; in other words, readers looking up this term are not going to find the information they are trying to find. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems as though there was content at this titles submitted for WP:AFD via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Stalins's religious views in 2015. Looks like the discussion was closed to "keep", even though at the time, the article consisted of one sentence? Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article had an entire (unsourced) paragraph upon creation [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The target has some relevant content (though no in a neatly delimited section): there's a paragraph about young Joseph's life at the seminary and how he became an atheist, and then a few sentences about his anti-religious policies as a leader. The redirects aren't terribly useful, but I don't think they're particularly bad either. I'm not sure to what an extent we should be bound by the outcome of the 2015 AfD: the article material was minimal, and the outcome of the AfD was effectively abandoned when immediately after the close someone turned the page into a redirect, without apparently anyone objecting. I guess it's also possible to re-create an article by splitting out the former section [2], but I don't think that's the optimal solution. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've been on the fence on this one for a while, but now I land here after reading the AfD and seeing the arguments that this is a notable topic. Deleting these redirects would clear the way for an actual article on this topic (Joseph Stalin was an atheist[citation needed]. does not count). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while it's plausible that a valid section on Stalin's religious views could be added to the target, or as part of the Political ideology section, there really isn't anything at the target that would satisfy a reader searching for this phrase. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, the redirects don't help the reader. If there is sufficient content as claimed in the AfD, an article can be recreated under any of these titles. Jay (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2022 (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 soft delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Francisco Gómez Jordana → Francisco Gómez-Jordana Sousa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Francisco Gómez Jordana (Q18223265) and Francisco Gómez-Jordana Sousa (Q1975761) are two different people. Hiro (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2022 (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 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonthaggi Human Powered Grand Prix → Wonthaggi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was previously an article though its history was deleted. At AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonthaggi Human Powered Grand Prix it was redirected to Wonthaggi but at that time the article had a brief description of the event and a photo [3], both of which have since been removed. So then we can either put back the description (note it appears the event is no-longer running [4]) or delete this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect. The event has no demonstrated notability. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (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 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Wingcloth" is a made-up word, guessing at a translation for the Polish term, so a pointless redirect.Delete. Ingratis (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. Google search just showed wiki mirrors and typos of "wing cloth". --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 27 April 2022 (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 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Beast (upcoming film) → Beast (2022 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer an upcoming film. Besides, no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there evidently are incoming links (if they are external) – see pageview stats. Even after that massive bank of views immediately post-move dropped up, the redirect still averages 10 views a day. 10 views a day doesn't sound like some massive amount, so to prove its importance I pressed random article five times. Those three articles' average number of daily pageviews (since 1 July 2021) were 0, 77, 1, 2, and 5. So 10 views per day is pretty damn good for a redirect. Deleting it harms readers' access to the intended article through links they follow. To what gain? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there are incoming links, but given the ambiguity between the incoming links and genuine searches, and lesserly the maintenance burden, I think it's best to delete. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 08:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, misleading. Veverve (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It turns out there is Beast (2022 American film), which has not yet released but is in the draftspace at Draft:Beast (2022 American film). Perhaps this can redirect to that instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are asking to redirect to List of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029)#Upcoming, the target of Beast (2022 American film)? Because we should not redirect from mainspace to draftspace. Jay (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, when I made this comment, Beast (2022 American film) was a redirect. 3 hours later Draft:Beast (2022 American film) was moved to Beast (2022 American film). Jay (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Beast (2022 American film) for now since it's a valid target. Whether or not this redirect needs to exist can then be reassessed after the release date of Beast (2022 American film) has passed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I'm also okay with "delete" because yes, in a few months, this redirect's disambiguator will be invalid, and such redirects usually get sent to the garbage bin. Steel1943 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The retarget was reverted. Jay (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a good example of a WP:COSTLY redirect due to the maintenance burden. The redirect is not needed as a placeholder for an article title, so I'd prefer to delete it while we're already here. I disagree that deleting it harms readers' access. The article for the American film states that it is upcoming in the opening sentence, ensuring that it will be prominent in search results. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Tavix's rationale. The titles are already disambiguated by year/country. Can be deleted now and save another discussion -- Ab207 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2022 (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/Withdrawn. I will add a mention to the top of the article about the old name giving the reference from Earl of Charlemont (ship) A7V2 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Point Flinders → Barwon Heads, Victoria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. I'm not sure if any mention is justified. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - historic name, see Earl of Charlemont (ship) and List of shipwrecks in June 1853#18 June. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2022 (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 01:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lakeside Recreation Reserve → Pakenham, Victoria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This existed for a couple of months in 2017 as a tiny unsourced stub before being BLARed by Onel5969. However, this is not mentioned at the target, nor does it appear that it ever was. I also think the name is quite generic. Even with my location in Victoria I don't have to go far down the google results to find places with the same or similar name elsewhere. Delete as I don't think it would be necessary to restore and AfD such a short and unreferenced article. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (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.