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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya → Anti-Russian sentiment#Within Russia  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect is the result of attempts to make an article heavily biased toward the Russian state POV more neutral. The article was moved to Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) and in hindsight it was a mistake to leave behind the redirect, as it continues to perpetrate the narrative that only Russians have only ever been the victims of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya (the article was later turned into a redirect to the current target, and the redirect at issue was de-doubled by a bot). While there are several possible examples of ethnically motivated violence (the region has experienced a lot of wars), the state of the constant POV pushing on this topic means that as far as I can tell there are currently no articles on Wikipedia that document more than one at a time. I think that the redirect should be a red link until someone is brave enough to write a neutral article on this topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Question would a dab page be feasible? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  If we could get a subject matter expert, maybe, but the best I could do personally would just be to redirect to Chechen War, which lists every conflict that occurred in Chechnya and/or involved Chechens. That feels too broad, and not better than deletion IMO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush? -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, also what do the Chechen wars have to do with ethnic cleansing at all? {{ 3125A| talk}} 00:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete In that case, delete until further notice. -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 08:16, 24 June 2020 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Indusface Pvt → Entrust  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak retarget to Computer security software since this seems to be an app securing website. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not mentioned there so I'm not sure I see the benefit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Striking my previous !vote. I've changed my mind and I guess the best solution is to delete this; there is no mention of this company anywhere and a retarget does seem pointless. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:13, 13 July 2020 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Universal problem → Universal property  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, Scholar search results don't suggest that this phrase is primarily associated with universal properties. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The answer is 42, but no-one knows what the question is now that the Earth has been destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

Less flippantly, this is hopelessly ambiguous. It could refer to several of the problems in Hilbert's program; but is not restricted to mathematics, and could refer to almost anything; including the very different theological and spiritual questions of the problem of evil and why are we here. Impossible to disambiguate, impossibly disparate for a WP:BCA. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:30, 5 July 2020 (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 keep. Fuck it. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• MOS:SMALL → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Font size  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

IMHO "MOS:SMALL" could mean anything and is rather vague, We currently have MOS:SMALLTEXT, MOS:SMALLCAPS and MOS:SMALLFONT which all point to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size too, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Unless you have some example of something else that would be "MOS:SMALL". Note that e.g. WP:V could mean lots of things as well. Please don't remove it while it's under discussion. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Small images, small coding for tables .... the list is endless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep something else. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Davey2010: Which pages in the MoS are about small images or small coding for tables? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• MOS:IMAGESIZE and there is no MOS for tables but that doesn't subtract from the fact it's still potentionally confusing, Also please stop pinging me I've asked you repeatedly to stop ... so stop. – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep we should always be very conservative when dealing with shortcut redirects as the potential disruption caused to old discussions (where references are not always linked) is massive. This is a relatively new redirect but it already has several incoming links and I see no benefit to deletion, especially as Koavf points out being ambiguous or potentially ambiguous is not a reason to delete a shortcut redirect. Your argument that other redirects exist to the current target is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and is even less of an argument to delete a shortcut redirect than it is to keep one. If you want this redirect deleted you need to show that the benefits from deletion of this redirect will outweigh the harm caused by deleting this redirect, but so far you've not demonstrated any that deletion will have any benefits or that keeping it will be at all harmful. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  A reason for deletion has been presented - Like I said "SMALL" can mean absolutely anything whereas SMALLTEXT, SMALLCAPS and SMALLFONT state the obvious, What does this redirect do that those above don't ? ... Nothing other than potentionally confusing people, – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  No, that's a reason why you don't like it, it isn't a valid reason to delete a shortcut redirect. That other shortcuts exist is irrelevant, that the shortcut is potentially confusing is irrelevant. If you don't know what a shortcut represents you follow the link (or look at in preview), so ambiguity isn't a problem. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:09, 4 July 2020 (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 Gaels. Protection seems a bit premature at this time, but it can be easily requested at WP:RFPP if the need arises. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Goidel → Old Irish  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Goidel means Gael, not Old Irish. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Dab with Goídel Glas etc. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC). reply
  
• Retarget to Gael, as explained in that article. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Gael itself is a redirect to Gaels. Goidel redirected to Gaels for nine years without interruption until a very persistent anon kept redirecting it to Goídelc, itself a redirect to Old Irish. The anon was reverted six times between December 2019 and February 2020, at which point a bot fixed the double redirect, pointing it to Old Irish before the anon could be reverted. I say speedy restore the original redirect to Gael and protect the page. — Mahāgaja · talk 22:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • My mistake, I meant Gaels. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget and protect as per Mahagaja. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:50, 9 July 2020 (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 Fibonacci number#Binet's formula , which is to say keep and refine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Binet's fibonacci number formula → Fibonacci number  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Miscapitalization of Fibonacci. Non-useful disambiguation of Binet's formula that has the same intended target (the present target of the redirect to be deleted is not the section where the topic is described) D.Lazard ( talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula (which is currently an alias for the Fibonacci number#Closed-form expression but will persist if the section is renamed or discussion of Binet's formula is moved elsewhere in the article). The miscapitalisation is completely plausible and the section deals with exactly what someone using this search term will be looking for. That another redirect exists to the same target is irrelevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula, which must be what was intended above. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not refine. Refining does not solve the two main issues, that are the miscapitalization and the non-useful disambiguation. Also the title is not a correct term; if the disambiguation would be needed, the title should be Binet's formula on Fibonacci numbers. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ D.Lazard: note I've unbolded your comment above as your opinion has already been made clear in your nomination. The miscapitalisation is completely trivial - many methods of finding Wikipedia content are case sensitive (excluding the first letter) and it is entirely plausible for someone to use all lowercase. Binet's formula on Fibonacci numbers might be a better title, but we're not dealing with titles here we are dealing with search terms and "Binet's fibonacci number formula" is an entirely plausible one. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I've rebolded the comment because it helps to clarify that the nominator is opposed to refining. It's inappropriate for you to take clerking action in a situation in which you are involved, given the fact that you are so actively opposed to the action the nominator wishes to make. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not going to revert you, but it is a principle longer standing than I've been at RfD (which is well over a decade) that the nominator does not get to make a second bolded recommendation when their nomination statement is clear. Clarifying that they stand by that statement is fine, but they do that without bolding. It's perfectly normal for someone involved in the discussion to remove bolding and/or strike (whichever is most appropriate in the given situation) whether involved or not provided they are clear about it. In this instance their nomination statement makes it clear they think it should be deleted so any second comment advocating that course of action should not include a bold to avoid double voting. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
        • There is no "second" bolded recommendation; there is only one. The nomination statement did not give any bolded action. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • It may not have bolded any words but it is unambiguously a clear recommendation for deletion. No one user gets to make more than one of those in any single discussion whether bolded or not - you know that, why are you actively encouraging someone to disregard it? Thryduulf ( talk) 22:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Refine to Fibonacci number#Binet's formula per above. I can see someone forgetting to capitalize the F in "Fibonacci," and that'll still get them to their intended target. Regards, SONIC 678 13:59, 3 July 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Natiuonal Boss Day → Boss's Day  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete as an unlikely and overspecific typo. Gaioa ( T C L) 00:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as an implausible typo. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete this junk because of the typo (to be fair, the U key is right next to the I key on a QWERTY keyboard layout, but this use makes it look like some other language, but I don't know which) that I'm assuming might be the reason it didn't get very many pageviews since July 2015. Regards, SONIC 678 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. However, Natuonal Boss Day should be created as a plausible misspelling. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I completely disagree, you would have to create the same for every redirect with the word "National" in it. Natuonal doesn't even exist either, and we shouldn't encourage anyone to create these unnecessary redirects. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • So do I, vehemently. A search for "natuonal" turned up precisely one hit, an obvious typo in main text (now fixed). Narky Blert ( talk) 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • You would not "need to" create anything. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC). reply
      
• Keep plausible fat-finger typo, harmless and well established. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC). reply
  
• Delete this unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete typo Devokewater ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2020 (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.