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. MrsSnoozyTurtle, edit warring over whether or not something should be an article is disruptive. Per WP:BLAR, if someone disagrees with your blanking and redirect, the proper procedure is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Élodie Chabrol → Pint of Science#International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no consensus to redirect, article subject meets GNG. the redirect discussion should occur at AfD. --Turktimex3 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment pinging Onel5969 and MrsSnoozyTurtle to speak their opinions about the BLAR. If necessary, an AFD nomination shall happen since this redirect-and-restore-and-redirect is going to escalate into WP:EDITWAR. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:28ED:F39F:A2F7:5736 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect. When I initially restored the redirect, the article was not close to passing GNG. After looking at the current sourcing, the academic has a weak h-Index of 14, there is no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, so if it is restored, it will just end up at AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect My take is also that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and that a redirect is helpful for navigation purposes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards restore since this is not the venue to discuss the merits of an article, and per WP:BLAR, if there is disagreement about the notability it should be discussed at AFD, and just repeatedly BLARing is in my opinion disruptive. As to the redirect itself, it seems appropriate enough if there is consensus against the existence of the article. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore: Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is in my view not a discussion for RfD per the 2021 RfC about BLARs. I think that this would best be discussed at AfD, where if consensus is to redirect, then it will remain in its current state; however, I don't personally view RfD as the place to discuss notability. TartarTorte 00:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per the above. If there is disagreement about whether a page should be an article or a redirect, then the correct course of action is to restore the article and discuss it on the talk page or at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. I am willing to restore article versions of any of these into draft or userspace if anyone would like to take the lead on making an article like those described in the discussion. --BDD (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebra I → Mathematics education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Algebra II → Mathematics education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Algebra 1 → Mathematics education in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Algebra 2 → Mathematics education in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Algebra 3 → Precalculus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both of these redirects Algebra I and Algebra II are ((R with history))s, but neither one of them is mentioned specifically in their target article. Yes, these titles refer to a specific courses that is taken at universities, but without mention in the target article, the current redirection situation is not helpful. Due to the existing histories of Algebra I and Algebra II, and to avoid deletion, it may be best to retarget these redirects to Algebra. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to nomination statement to accommodate the addition of Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Mathematics education in the United States (probably either to the section "Curricular content", or anchored to relevant sections) where these are explicitly mentioned and discussed, and which is what the original articles in the history of these are about (high school mathematics education in the United States). A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying this applies to all but Algebra 3. A7V2 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both(Re)target both forms of Algebra I and Algebra II to Mathematics education in the United States where both are discussed per A7V2. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Mathematics education in the United States since both of these courses are unique to the United States. Sending to a section specifically referencing these courses would be fine. --seberle (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not just US high schools, everywhere that algebra is being taught over several years or terms there's a tendency to label the individual units like that (examples from Russia [1] and from US higher education phttps://principedia.princeton.edu/principedia/algebra-i/], where the content is understandably unrelated to that of the high school modules). Noting also that the redirects Algebra 1, Algebra 2 and Algebra 3 also exist. – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The "Algebra 1" course at the Moscow University referred to by User:Uanfala is part of a university-level sequence on abstract algebra. Such courses may also be found in American universities over the span of one or two semesters. However, the term "Algebra 1" in the U.S. almost always refers to a high school course taught around 9th grade, and such courses are generally not found outside of the U.S. The university level course is usually referred to in English as "Abstract Algebra". Most English-speaking people searching for "Algebra I" or "Algebra 1" are probably looking for the high school course, so it should redirect to Mathematics Education in the United States. --seberle (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to adding Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3 to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2, Mdewman6, Seberle, and Uanfala: Pinging current participants to let them know of the 3 new redirects have been added to the nomination in the event their votes need to be adjusted. (Thanks Uanfala for pointing out the existence of these redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Algebra 3 (but keep/retarget others per my amended original comment above). Algebra 3 is not mentioned at target, and has only some passing mentions elsewhere on enwiki, usually in references. Pedagogically, Algebra III is probably equivalent to precalculus in the U.S., but is at best a much less common synonym. Unless a mention can be added, deletion seems best. Moreover, Algebra III does not exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Algebra 3, not mentioned and per Mdewman6. A7V2 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Algebra 3, per Mdewman6 and A7V2. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, confusing. I took a course in "Algebra 1" at a German university and it was mostly Galois theory. Failing that, redirect to algebra, which mentions most of the things that "Algebra 1" can mean. —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  British universities also have "Algebra 1" classes referring to algebraic structures like fields and rings: Algebra 1 at Warwick. I don't think the University of Warwick should be discussed at Mathematics education in the United States, but I do think the target of Algebra 1 should contain information about things covered in Warwick's Algebra 1 course. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Algebra 3, but retarget others to Mathematics education in the United States. There is no course called Algebra 3. Also, these course names are unique to the United States. Mast303 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Warwick, which offers "Algebra 1" and "Algebra II", is not in the United States. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. These terms are too generic to be useful search results, in addition to the above a quick search found that the University of Tasmania has an Algebra 2 module [2], Durham University (UK) offers Algebra II [3] and "algebra 1" seems to be an informal name for several different courses at different levels in the Indian education system. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: Algebra 1 is used most often in the United States. So we should redirect Algebra 1, 2, etc. to the corresponding sections of the article Mathematics education in the United States. Algebra 3 should be deleted because it is not a commonly used term. 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ENGVAR complications have surfaced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If these terms are kept at all, they should redirect to Mathematics education in the United States since this is by far the most common usage. (They can apparently also refer to the first part of a college abstract algebra course in some places.) Course titles, especially those recognized in only one country, don't seem like encyclopedia content to me. I am fine with deleting these terms. --seberle (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Algebra I and Algebra II. These articles can and should be expanded to explain these courses elsewhere outside of the US, as well as differences in the curricula. In the meantime ((Globalize)) templates and perhaps examples of the non-US offerings that have been linked in this discussion would enhance the articles. Retarget Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 respectfully. Delete Algebra 3, no suitable content exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Courses with these names exist at the high school and also college levels, and in multiple countries. There is no single established meaning for any of them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Kusma and XOReaster _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Per rational provided by XOR'easter and Kusma. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Laguna Provincial Board#List of members. Jay 💬 12:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine Agapay → Laguna (province)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from a person to a province makes no sense. It might as well redirect to Earth. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the person in question seems to the vice-governor of the province, so there is at least something that relates to the two together (i.e. it's not completely random, as implied by the nominator). I tagged it as a redirect from a person as couldn't see a strong enough reason to consider it useless (i.e. it has some usefulness, if very little). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment would Vice Governor's meet WP:POLITICIAN? If so we should delete the redirect per WP:REDLINK.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Laguna_Provincial_Board#List_of_members, which seems the most helpful target; where the most information on Agapay is. It is isn't a completely illogical redirect as it stands – she is mentioned in the province's article. J947 † ^edits 04:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This person is a vice governor, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL yet. Maybe if she becomes a congresswoman. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the retarget and delete proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Laguna_Provincial_Board#List_of_members per J947. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Laguna_Provincial_Board#List_of_members per J947. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. It already targets Greg Hambleton and is now mentioned there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuesday Records → Greg Hambleton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect representing a topic not named in the target article for any context as to why it redirects there. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg Hambleton as he is the founder of the label. When I created the re-direct, I forgot to add content to his article to support the redirect. My apologies. I'll get on the job shortly and get it done. Karl Twist (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Marriage Market (film) → The Marriage Market (1917 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two films of this name have articles. Is there a primary topic? J947 † ^edits 09:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to dab between The Marriage Market (1917 film) and The Marriage Market (1923 film). Not sure which one is the primary topic. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have drafted a dab assuming there is no primary. Jay 💬 12:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 procedural close as redundant nomination; if the article is deleted, redirects to the deleted article are generally deleted as well. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jew Gold → Jew gold  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete recommended along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep until the discussion finishes, per the consensus just yesterday. This redirect'll be speedy deleted if the target is deleted. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Disruptive renomination. The closure yesterday clearly stated that this redirect will be eligible for CSD G8 if the target is deleted, so there is no reason to bring it up here. Glades12 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. This is essentially per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold even though this redirect has a different target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jewgold → Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion recommended along the same reasoning presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Once again, these redirects are minor spelling variants of the target, which if deleted will have these redirects speedy deleted per G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Disruptive renomination, same as #Jew Gold. Glades12 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• D/K depending upon if this is found to be WP:ATD-R at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold: First off, apologies for what is certainly my longest bold part of a !vote I've done; however my arguments are such. Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow isn't up at AfD so unless this is retargeted to Jew gold, this wouldn't be WP:G8able if Jew gold is deleted at the AfD. The AfD for the article Jew gold has consensus currently roughly leaning towards deleting Jew gold instead of retargeting to Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow. By this same logic, we should also delete this redirect; however, if consensus changes and Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow is found to be a suitable WP:ATD-R (I don't believe it really is both for it's high potential for vandalism and low view counts), then it should be kept, despite my personal thoughts, as that's what consensus dictated was appropriate for a very similar term. TartarTorte 15:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jew gold was deleted at AfD, but this redirect was not deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a variant of Jew gold which had no consensus for redirecting at the AfD. There was one vote for redirect, and several against redirecting. I understand the speedy keeps here by LaundryPizza03 and Glades12 were a misunderstanding of the target (as this is different from the Jew Gold RfD), and as explained by Tartar and Natg 19. Jay 💬 12:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Move without redirect to Alternatives to bitumen. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatives to asphalt → Bitumen#Alternatives and bioasphalt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could potentially be ambiguous since "asphalt" could also refer to Asphalt concrete, and alternatives to that could include any material that can be used to make a road. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be changed to "Alternatives to Bitumen" as the target itself is referencing Bitumen. Id also argue a move discussion is not needed as it is a result of the move in Bitumen. Garfie489 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect to Alternatives to bitumen per Garfie489, or move and replace existing redirect per the options given per nom, either as a redirect or a dab. Jay 💬 11:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).