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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SEPTA Night → SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes#SEPTA Owl Link  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I initially retargeted this to Owl Service, but there really isn't a great target for this. It was initially targeting SEPTA subway–surface trolley lines, before my retarget. This doesn't really seem to refer to any specific concept and I cannot find anything to back it up as a nickname for the subway-surface, so I think deletion is the best route. TartarTorte 23:40, 20 July 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lars Terenius → Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine#Former members  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like this already redirected page to be deleted because it makes it extremely difficult to search for any other pages regarding Lars Terenius. 66.194.72.22 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 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 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meese might be a plausible redirect as an uncommonly used plural for moose, but "meese" in quotes is a pretty unlikely search term. TartarTorte 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible, hoaxy. --Beeblebrox (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see Wiktionary Peter Horn User talk 17:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Meese itself would be fine, and it's listed at the disambig there. It's "meese" with the quotes in the redirect has is WP:UNNATURAL. TartarTorte 19:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Totally appropriate entry at the dab page, but the quotes make this not very useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the quotes. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as uselessly malformed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 23 July 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 to Philip DeFranco. ✗plicit 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PhillyD → Philadelphia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Phillyd → Philadelphia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible type to add the letter D to the end of the word Philly. TartarTorte 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of these initially targeted Philip DeFranco as ((r from nickname))s, but were subsequently retargeted to the city. - Eureka Lott 16:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't oppose a retarget there. That seems to make far more sense than Philadelphia. TartarTorte 19:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Philip DeFranco per Eureka Lott. The nickname is mentioned in the lede. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Philip DeFranco per Eureka Lott and Presidentman--with a supporting evidence looking at the editing history of the user who retargetted them. Skynxnex (talk) 01:41, 21 July 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 to Martial arts#20th century (1914 to 1989) to at least lead the reader to more relevant information related to the craze. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Martial arts craze → Modern schools of ninjutsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems rather vague. I don't see why schools that teach martial arts is an appropriate target. Retarget to Martial arts or delete. MB 07:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't an appropriate target, and it turns out that nobody thought that it was; this redirect wasn't created intentionally. Rather, it came about as a consequence of multiple rounds of bot-driven double-redirect fixing as a consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-ninja; as far as I can tell this would have been a quadruple redirect if not for the bot fixes, and some of the individual steps along the chain were a little dicey in the first place. It isn't surprising that, after what is effectively a bot-driven game of Chinese whispers, the resulting redirect doesn't make any sense. --ais523 16:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete there have been several martial arts crazes. The one in the 70s lead to kung fu, jeet kune do and karate schools. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find good targets in either martial arts or martial arts timeline. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Martial arts#20th century (1914 to 1989) which describes the popularisation of Eastern martial arts in the West. Martial arts craze originally redirected to Ninja craze (which made a lot more sense). That title was redirected to Neo-ninja which was later merged with Schools of Ninjutsu, and still later renamed to the current target. I tend to agree that that is too vague even for its original target. I also think that Ninja craze ought to be retargeted to Ninjas in popular culture#Modern popular culture which does indeed describe a modern ninja craze. SpinningSpark 08:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your retarget suggestion for Ninja craze, but you can probably do it boldly; it shouldn't need a second RfD. I'm not so sure about the suggestion for the redirect under discussion, though. --ais523 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Retarget per Spinning above. There was a martial arts craze, and that section does describe it. I'm pretty sure that if you are searching this term, this is in fact what you are looking for. No comment on ninja craze. Fieari (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wrote a relist reason but it was swallowed in an edit conflict revert. Anyhow, we'd like further consideration of the suggestion to retarget to Martial arts#20th century (1914 to 1989), which seems to cover this craze. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Spinning. Although the section title (indicating 1914) may not appear appropriate for this redirect, the content the section has, is what the reader is probably looking for, or it can be the seed for a new article. Jay (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for a firmer consensus…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 20 July 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lotto Boyzz → M.O  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 10:49, 20 July 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 to The Fellowship of the Ring#Members. Jay 03:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fellowship of the Ring (characters) → Template:The Fellowship of the Ring/Plot summary#Fellowship of the Ring  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This currently redirects to a section of a template which is transcluded on The Lord of the Rings and The Fellowship of the Ring. This is the only redirect I've seen like this. Might it be better to redirect to the appropriate section on The Lord of the Rings? Maybe that was the intention. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The section is shared between LOTR and FOTR, (FOTR being one of three arbitrarily-divided volumes of LOTR, the publisher's choice) so it makes no difference; the actual text is in the shared template. I'm actually not at all sure why this should have been brought to XfD as deletion doesn't seem to be proposed, nor to be a sensible option. I suggest we take no action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But RfD doesn't just keep/delete redirects; it also retargets and creates disambiguation pages. Most of the XfD pages are not named "X for deletion" for a very good reason. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to FOTR, substitute the template onto FOTR, and then delete the template. Do we seriously need a template for some paragraphs of text? Transclusion of the FOTR plot summary to elsewhere can be done without templates. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also nominated the template for deletion at TfD. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What mello said, or similar. There should be a better solution than the current cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how about retargeting to Fellowship of the Ring#Members? Not sure what to do about the template, guess that's a separate issue being discussed at TfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing the point of this redirect. I was expecting to be taken to a list of characters, or at least something that was organised by character. Instead, it just goes to the plot summary of The Fellowship of the Ring. That's just confusing for the user, especially if they have already found the FOTR page. It would be better to delete the redirect so that only the FOTR page turns up in search results and the user is not confused into believing we have more to find when we do not. SpinningSpark 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refining my retargeting suggestion to The Fellowship of the Ring#Members. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still not convinced that this a useful redirect but retarget per Mellohi! is an acceptable compromise. It certainly cannot stay as it is because the current target has now been deleted. SpinningSpark 13:37, 25 July 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 the article. Further discussion can be saved for AfD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anterior chain → Ripping (bodybuilding)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. It's a muscle group consisting of muscles on the front of your legs (quadriceps, hip flexors, etc.). I'm not seeing a good target so support WP:REDLINK. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as an article at this version. In this edit the page was allegedly merged to Beach muscles, but that page's history shows that absolutely nothing was added between the merge template being added and removed, other than an unreferenced tag. "Beach muscles was [prodded in 2020, but instead of deletion it was redirected by an editor to Ripping (bodybuilding), again without merging anything. So it is not surprising that the target contains no information because it is two fake merges distant from the original article. Both editors should be slapped with a wet trout for managing to lose a viable article by default. SpinningSpark 14:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article per SpinningSpark. I'll go ahead and open another RfD for Beach muscles which was also redirected without being merged. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @CycloneYoris: Why not just restore that too? No RfD is needed to turn a redirect (back) into an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: But since it was redirected as an expired PROD, wouldn't it be problematic to just restore it without any discussion? CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @CycloneYoris: All PRODded articles can be restored on request at REFUND, so I don't see any procedural issue with reverting a redirect-in-lieu-of-PROD. If anything Nick Moyes' decision to redirect rather than delete (there are enough sources out there to suggest a redirect is a better option) indicates that he intended the possibility of a bold restoration. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not be happy to see restoration of an article to a form that has been uncited for many years. But if someone wants to restore any deleted or redirected article, I feel it is incumbent on them to put the effort in to add a few WP:RS to allow people to verify that 'it really is a thing'. Or we'll be cycling back and doing it all again in a year or two. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you do a WP:BEFORE check? If you did I'd love to hear why you think the results found in gbooks are so dubious that you can't add them yourself and have to makework for others. SpinningSpark 11:30, 27 July 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 between keeping or deleting. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Getty Museum, J. Paul → J. Paul Getty Museum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not clear how a user would ever search this specific term. It appears to be in the form LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, except for the fact that "museum" is not part of Getty's name. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 01:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: While not a common usage, the J. Paul Getty Museum is often called the Getty Museum so for sorting it would be sorted under G most likely. Even though this isn't a human name, for sorting purposes this could be useful; however Getty Museum also redirects to J. Paul Getty Museum, which would probably be better for sorting. Fundamentally, this is a WP:CHEAP keep argument as there is at least some plausibility. TartarTorte 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a reasonable Search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per TatarTorte. I agree that WP:CHEAP applies as I'm not seeing anything harmful about the existence of this redirect as despite it being uncommon it's not inaccurate, misleading or in the way of anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 20 July 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 on whether the exclusion of the final H is a plausible typo or not. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Qasim al-Faqi → Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally created in error by block-evading sockpuppet JawnFamily when moving from Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. We already are retaining the correct alternative name Qasim al-Faqih as a redirect, so to also keep this minimally different but wrong redirect seems superfluous.Moreover, when one types in "Qasim al" or "Qasim al-faq" what should appear is the correct Qasim al-Faqih, not this. This is especially important given that the target page does not mention "Qasim al-Faqih" for the time being, giving readers the impression that "Qasim al-Faqi" is correct. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I originally declined the speedy-delete WP:G5 nomination because technically, the redirect wasn't created by the sockpuppet (see the history) and if one person made an error in titling the article, another person might also, so the redirect seemed plausible. My edit summary had mistakenly recommended discussion at WP:MFD instead of here at RFD, so I have just moved it here. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as ((R from typo))? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. فقيه is normally Faqīh. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:28, 20 July 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 to Isaac Wayne (1699–1774). By the numbers this is an even split, but no delete !votes contest the assertion that this is a plausible misspelling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Issac Wayne (1699-1774) → Anthony Wayne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Issac Wayne (1699–1774) → Anthony Wayne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'd like to request that this page be deleted rather than re-directed to Anthony Wayne. There is an existing page Isaac Wayne (1699-1774) but this page has a slight difference spelling "Issac Wayne (1699- 1774)" and has been incorrectly re-directed to Anthony Wayne. This is adding confusion and would be remedied by deleting this page. Dwkaminski (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a second bot generated one that differs only in hyphenation used. Delete both, clearly an error whhch would qualify for CSD R3 if it were recent. SpinningSpark 17:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did Anthony have any relatives named Issac, Isaac, or similar? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mellohi!: Isaac is the son of Anthony. The redirect is left over from before Isaac had his own article. SpinningSpark 19:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct - Isaac Wayne lived from 1772 to 1852 and was a U.S. Congressman Dwkaminski (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Isaac Wayne (1699–1774), the target's father, who also has his own article. "Issac" is a plausible misspelling of "Isaac". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Isaac Wayne (1699–1774) per Mellohi! This should remedy the problem of misdirecting readers searching for this guy's article to that of his son. Both these titles are potentially helpful if centered on the right target. Regards, SONIC678 19:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This misspelling is causing confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Isaac Wayne (1699–1774) per Mellohi. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 05:11, 20 July 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 speedy delete per the G8 criterion. (The very slow kind of speedy delete that comes 19 minutes after the page became eligible for regular deletion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Citebot → User:Citeboot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to banned sockpuppet user — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: While the user is banned, there is a conversation (albeit a not particularly productive one) where the user signed name as Citebot, so it would possibly cause confusion to remove that redirect. TartarTorte 13:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is "Citeboot" really a banned sockpuppet user? They were tagged as a "suspected sockpuppet", but I don't see an SPI case that conclusively concludes that they're actually a sock. They are currently blocked for their username and not for sockpuppetry. The tagging user is themselves blocked for being a confirmed sockpuppet of Edgar181 (ironically). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a redirect from a former username, as the name has not been usurped. The account was renamed from Citebot, but there was a delay in renaming, and the user continued to edit and was blocked; after the renaming there was no reason for the block to remain. Probably not the user's first account but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_flooring&diff=prev&oldid=754045526 is the reason for the sockpuppet tag (added by the user whose edit was reverted there); the edit summary indicates that it may be a mistaken edit and possibly a coincidence that they started editing after the other account was blocked. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @TartarTorte and Peter James: Sorry to complicate things, but noting that I've deleted the target page as an SPI clerk action, as is standard for dubious sock-taggings where there is no version to revert to. Can this be closed as a G8? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now the target page has been deleted and it was only a redirect from a move with no other revisions. Peter James (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, no opposition to a G8 deletion now. Redirect would only serve to confuse. TartarTorte 00:48, 27 July 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.