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 Baker Center. Obvious, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Baker center → Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion, as this redirect makes it harder to locate articles about places also named “Baker Center”. There is a disambiguation page for “Baker Center” that includes the target article as well as two others. I see little reason for this redirect to continue existing. Slamforeman (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Baker Center as the most helpful option. I've added some more entries there, and created Baker Centre as a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you very much! Slamforeman (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Baker Center per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Baker Center per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Baker center per Lentciel, Presidentman, and Thryduulf. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 withdraw / retarget to September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• September 26, 1963 → 1963#September  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No September 26th listed there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Delete': per nom. Pointless to redirect a variant of a date to an article that does not mention that date. Meters (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retarget Still not a great redirect, but at least September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday) is in use. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak retarget to September 1963#September 26 as the creator. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday). I wouldn't have recommended the creation of this redirect, but now it exists we might as well point it to the content about that date we have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday) as better target --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meters and Presidentman: Any chance I could convince you to change your stance so I can withdraw this thing? Seems a target was found. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for the ping. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer deletion, but I will defer to you for the sake of consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Cops (TV program)#Episodes. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• List of Cops episodes → List of Cops episodes (season 21–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think that many may want to search the original term in an attempt to find an episode/episodes from before season 21, therefore a disambiguation page seems like the best way. 83.168.137.1 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Cops (TV program)#Episodes, which seems to serve the purpose mentioned by the nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget per Steel1943. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Cops (TV program)#Episodes per Steel1943 as the most suitable target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Cops (TV program)#Episodes per Steel1943 and InterstellarGamer12321. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• HSOWA → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon breeding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

stands for "hot skitty on wailord action". self-explanatory cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete pointless. User:Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete the wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of memes --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. For the person that made this redirect, you are in the wrong place for your internet meme. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Minister for Education and Youth Affiars (New South Wales) → Minister for Education and Early Learning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Unlikely typo for a defunct position. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ✗plicit 05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 0 A.D. (video game → 0 A.D. (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We should not have redirects with parenthetical disambiguation where the closing bracket is missing. If this is typed into search, the reader will certainly be led to the correct page without a redirect, requiring 0-1 extra clicks. —Alalch E. 03:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom, implausible. ^Complex/_Rational 13:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, WP:UNNATURAL. Not sure why this was created in the first place. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Omission of the last parenthesis is a common Reddit formatting screw-up. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete although its existed since 2012 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment, this redirect has received 10 pageviews this month. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Ca and Utopes. It's clear that this redirect is useful, deletion will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think that the redirect only received pageviews because of this CfD which is now a TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 11#Template:R of dubious utility. It's something that CfD/TfD people would click from the category, out of curiosity. It's at the top of the list. These probably aren't organic pageviews. —Alalch E. 13:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, I commented because I was confused why this title was being nominated individually (given that I likely would have bundled it later), especially when there's still a good 100+ or so similar redirects with 0 pageviews this month. I see now that it's been placed in the "redirects of dubious utility" category, to which I agree with this assessment. 0.3 views a day for a pretty eye-catching category I feel is essentially noise and not indicative of high use. The correct title shows up in "Did you mean..." if someone didn't already use autofill. Better to remove this implausible redirect which encourages unideal naming practices. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Another instance where a grammatical error like this is extremely unlikely to happen. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ✗plicit 05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unforms of the canadian forces → Uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This nomination is not about all-lowercase. Notice the typo in the fist word, "Unforms". It lacks an "i". Not a plausible redirect. —Alalch E. 03:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. The capitalisation isn't a problem, the typo in the first word is and I'm unsure about the missing "armed" too. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I have never seen any typo of “Uniform” as “Unform” - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Jay 💬 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• George Floyd race riots → George Floyd protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RNEUTRAL. Nobody refers to them this way. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL #3. Based on my searches, there does appear to be usage of this phrase from mainly right-wing sources. See, e.g., [1], [2], and [3]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. RNEUTRAL#3 still requires that we're considering reliable sources, not deprecated or otherwise unreliable sources like those above. If we're not considering reliability, we can create absolutely any redirect that's been mentioned on the internet (defeating the point of that guideline). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The second source is The New York Post, and the third is a reprint of an article from The Wall Street Journal (here is a link to the paywalled version). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  NY Post is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP). The third link was to "The Red Line", but I see now it's WSJ. It's an opinion piece in the WSJ, though, which isn't reliable for anything beyond the author's opinions. IMO we should not have such low standards for this sort of thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think you're misinterpreting the rule you're citing. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete As with all of these a POV fork is designed to enable someone to call them a riot, despite RS not using the term. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as the phrase is only from a handful of non-reliable, far-right sources and opinion pieces. It is also a deliberately misleading phrase. The events were not "race riots". Many of those were actually convicted of riot-related charges were White Americans. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Firstly, note that this is a redirect, so the only time it will be seen is generally if someone searches for it. Given that someone searching for the article may not fully understand what took place (hence the reason they might like to read the article), so helping someone find what they are looking for is a positive. Secondly, there is clearly usage amongst sources, some questionable (but still used by some of our readers no doubt), and some are not, for example The Australian (I can't link directly due to paywall but see the headline here [4] "George Floyd race riots show American dreams in flames"). A7V2 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. There is no requirement that non-neutral terms appear in reliable sources in order to justify a redirect, they are simply required to be established terms. Indeed a term appearing only or primarily in unreliable sources can often make a good redirect as it enables people to find NPOV coverage of the event (or person, etc) and coverage in reliable sources when they use a different term. It's also worth remembering that usage here is effectively ABOUTSELF - all we're looking for is evidence of use of the term in this context, and even a deprecated source can be used to verify that that source used a given term in a given context. In this case however, the term does appear in reliable sources (e.g. The Week, The Australian, City Journal, Manhattan Institute (the latter two are biased sources that require attribution, but that's irrelevant here). Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep. Seems the net positive of someone not knowing that the target article uses the word "protests" on its title and allowing the redirect as an option to get there outweighs the WP:RNEUTRAL issues. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This wasn't a riot against Whites and Blacks, this was just simply protesting to give more respect to Black Lives as in "Black Lives Matter". StaleGuy22 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Where does the redirect title imply that this was "a riot against Whites and Blacks"? "Race riots" just means riots where race was a/the motivating factor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  (StaleGuy22 on another account). Ah, my bad. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 no consensus. Jay 💬 16:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Theroy of Evolution → Evolution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from typo. While it's obviously possible that anybody could accidentally type "theroy" instead of "theory" by mistake, we don't need to create preemptive redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody making -- a person could also accidentally type "tehroy", "thoery", "theryo", "theoyr", "hteryo", "rgwiet", or any number of other things, and any number of possible typos in "evolution" too, so there's no need for us to preemptively create thousands of redirects from every possible typo. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Long-standing redirect and, since even the nominator admits this is a plausible misspelling, I see no reason to delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Plausible typo" is not grounds for keeping a redirect from a misspelling — there are literally thousands of ways that the title "theory of evolution" could possibly be mistyped, so we can't feasibly create a redirect from every possible misspelling that anybody might ever type by mistake. The bar that would have to be cleared to justify a redirect-from-misspelling is evidence that a significant number of people in the real world actually think that theroy is the actual spelling of the word, not just whether it's possible to imagine that somebody might mistype it that way by accident — because again, there are thousands of different possible ways to mistype any word or title, and there's no value in trying to predict all of them in advance. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Agree this one is pretty silly, obvious delete Efbrazil (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: 100% harmless and WP:CHEAP. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep cheap, harmless, old. Even saved some typing for a few people in the past 90 days. Though I agree that obvious typographical error redirects should not be created. They should be deleted under R3 when they appear. ― Synpath 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep simple transposition of two-letters that are next to each other, thus a likely form of ((R from typo)) . We are also not creating a new redirect, since this isn't a redirect creation request. This redirect has been around for over 15 years -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since any two letters in any word can be accidentally transposed by any typist at any time, keeping this on those grounds would inherently require the creation of millions of redirects from every possible transposition of all the letters in every title of every article we have at all. So the relevant question here isn't "is it possible to mistype ro instead of or?", because it's always possible to mistype any combination of letters — the question is whether "theroy-->theory" is such a uniquely special case of such uniquely special importance that it requires special treatment over and above all other possible typos that we don't handle this way, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is proposing mass-creation of redirects. But this one is already here, so we may as well keep it. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete There's too much garbage on Wikipedia and we need to clean it up.18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Genome42 (talk)
  • Whether or not that is true in the abstract, this is not an example of garbage. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Presidentman and Synpath, this is demonstrably helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as R typo. Normally someone will make a typo redirect once they made the mistake themself. Respublik (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I personally wouldn't have nominated this redirect, as a number of even worse typos I've seen survive these discussions. A past me would've sent something like New zealad to RfD, which I saw go by in the queue last week or so (very new). In an ideal world, that redirect would never exist, but ah well. I agree there's almost no chance "theroy" is a common typo (zero views in the month before nom), and there's hundreds of ways to butcher the spelling of any random word for any random page. At the end of the day, the spelling of "theroy" is nothing special and is not a plausible typo in comparison to the hundreds of other typos, which no one has justified. Unfortunately, my delete !vote is mainly spiritual, because it's been around for a while and on the scale of pressing typo problems, this one is low I fear. Ideally we could delete it while we're here with the RfD open, but keeping or deleting doesn't really do anything as it's a bit of a nothingburger in the grand scheme of typos. There's other problem redirects worth the time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This is actually a double mistake: one of many possible typos with nothing to suggest that it is especially common, as well as improper capitalization, as evolution is a common noun and most occurrences in the literature treat it as such in theory of evolution. (The properly capitalized title with the same typo does not exist.) ^Complex/_Rational 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete because Theroy doesn't exist and never has, meaning there is no expectation that the nominated redirect is likely, even if this redirect was created (as an article) in 2008. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep As per the comments that most of the people that put "Keep" say. StaleGuy22 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep average redirect from misspelling. Pageviews surely come from the users making the typo, which is evidence of this being a non-useless redirect. The incorrect capitalization doesn't matter in this case, because the redirect works either way (even if "Theroy of evolution" is entered).—Alalch E. 01:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlikely misspelling and not plausible enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Jay 💬 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Redirect from typo. I can find no evidence on the web that any significant number of people actually refer to this game as "Minecrat" on purpose -- I can find a few stray examples of people who mistyped it as Minecrat, but not nearly enough to suggest that there's any significant phenomenon of people spelling it that way to take into account. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: clearly a plausible misspelling if you have found instances of it "in the wild." Harmless and WP:CHEAP. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Simple typos and plausible misspellings are not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Bearcat: Typos are a subset of misspellings. Some of them are more plausible than others. A mistyping is an acceptable and useful redirect. If the misspelling was deliberate or a "phenomenon" then by definition it wouldn't be a misspelling. Over forty people have found this useful in the last few months, so keeping it is a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. Unlikely but vaguely plausible redirects that get occasional usage do absolutely no harm whatsoever and serve a small benefit to the encyclopedia. Redirects are cheap, and there is no substantial rationale for deletion, in my view. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Cremastra. Small benefit + no harm = net positive to the encyclopaedia. Deleting things that are a net benefit to the project is exactly what we should not be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep R typo. Respublik (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete WP:XY with Minecart. Not a plausible typo, neither Minecraft nor Minecart are hard to spell, really not worth keeping. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I agree with utopes (talk · contribs) that this is WP:XY - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. A rare misspelling that never happens to anyone, I would say get rid of this. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. IMO this isn't an WP:XY redirect; the title doesn't contain "and" or "or". However, WP:RDEL #2 ("might cause confusion") seems to apply for the reason given by Utopes. PleaseStand (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oftentimes, WP:XY is applied in the abstract for whenever a target could equally refer to "x" or to "y", with no way to make a definitive conclusion to an individual target. A pretty easily definable example would be something like Shmapples and shmoranges, which would be an unideal redirect that plausibly refers to either of the two subjects. When it comes to typos that are barely separable from two or more correct titles, these cases have also fallen under WP:XY's "abstract" definition. A recent example that I remember involving WP:XY would be for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 8#Indiom, which was one letter off of both idiom, and indium, with no way to achieve 100% confidence that one is the "correct" typo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete because it could also contain a typo of Minecart.—Alalch E. 23:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ✗plicit 05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Complete esults of the Canadian federal election, 2004 → Results of the 2004 Canadian federal election by riding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo; this was the page title for less than half a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as this is an unlikely typo. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as per Jo The Fire Dragon and for another reason, if a result is published, then it is already "complete". This means that the "complete" is unnecessary to me. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Misspelled, and nothing on Wikipedia is ever "complete". Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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