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 23:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Zuhra ibn al-Hawiyya → Early Muslim conquests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to enable uninhibited Search. The target doesn't have a mention, but Search reveals several articles that do (and another for "Zuhra ibn Hawiyah". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 20 March 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 Jules Kroll. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kroll Bond Rating Agency → Kroll Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete the redirect because the two companies are unrelated to each other. Mreniwal (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jules Kroll, the founder of both Kroll Inc. and KBRA. Seems that both companies are not completely unrelated as stated by nom, since they were founded by the same person. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 25 March 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. Jay (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anna,IL → Anna, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not needed, no incoming links Leschnei (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lack of links is not a reason to delete. Not sure what is meant by "not needed". In any case, seems a plausible enough search term and clearly goes to where a searcher is looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my lack of clarity - by 'not needed' I meant that the grammatically incorrect version is not needed - there is no space between 'Anna,' and 'IL'. There is an Anna, IL which I do think is worth keeping. Leschnei (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP should be lenient on punctuation in searches General Vicinity (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... no we shouldn't (Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: we should have redirects for plausible misspellings of difficult to guess names, but not for obvious and minor modifications, like an incorrectly spaced disambiguator. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. Malformed redirect with incorrect spacing. No reason for keeping when correctly spelled counterpart already exists, as stated above by nominator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 25 March 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 moot. Article has been restored by copy-paste move, and a ((histmerge)) template has been placed. For what it's worth, were this not moot, an article's creator removing a post-draftification R2 is best handled by asking them if they're contesting the draftification. If they are, one should un-draftify. If they are not, it becomes a user conduct issue. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cross-namespace redirect post draftification of the article. CSD tag WP:R2 is removed by the creator — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect from article space to draft space. Speedy tag should not have been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as the article has been copy and pasted back again, not by the article creator but by one of its editors. If it stays there needs to be a history-merge with the draft. If it should go there needs to be an AfD as the draftification is obviously contested. Personally I would wait until it's release April 9th or a week later to decide on an AfD based on the existence of reviews in reliable sources or not as the case may be, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 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. There is rough consensus that the name in modern Hebrew is relevant enough for this particular non-modern figure. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• יוסף בן מתתיהו → Josephus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Translation of "Joseph son of Matthias" to modern Hebrew, which falls under WP:RFFL as Flavius isn't a Hebrew name, and this is just another editor's conjectural reconstruction in a modern language, and there is no evidence of what his actual name in Hebrew sounded like during his lifetime. Also, not mentioned in the article. Avilich (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: as a Hebrew speaker, the name "Flavius" is not mentioned in the redirect. It's translation is "Yosef, son of Matityahu" --93.123.119.139 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My translator got bad for a moment, and I amended the statement accordingly, but there's more to the argument than that, and it should still be deleted. Avilich (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's amended statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the name used in Hebrew for a historical Jewish figure from present-day Israel. Keep as a plausible RLOTE. -- צביה בת מיכאל ומלכה, a.k.a. Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's known in modern Israel as "Joseph son of Matthias", that much is clear, but that has no relevance for a figure that lived thousands of years ago. RFFL#1 and #2 aren't met here. Avilich (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A figure that lived thousands of years ago... in present-day Israel. You know, that place that speaks Hebrew? קז'ואל של ג'קיל/casualdejekyll 01:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew wasn't the standard language at the time, nor probably the one he wrote in. There is no evidence of how he was referred to in Hebrew, so the use of a modern reconstruction such as "Joseph son of Matthias" in modern Hebrew has no more justification under RFFL than any other rendition in any other modern language. Avilich (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping that the consensus can become more clear with a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as a valid RLOTE. Yes, it's a modern reconstruction, but all the reasons that we allow RLOTE at all apply here. Sources people use are going to mention the Hebrew, and that makes it a valid search term. Even if they don't have a hebrew keyboard, copy and paste searches are a thing. Fieari (talk) 00:34, 22 March 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.