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. No participants in this discussion have offered any defense to this particular redirect, which is held to be implausible. The side discussion about the validity of 2020 4. deild karla's article in the first place would obviously need to be resolved elsewhere via a separate nomination at articles for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• 2020 2017 4. deild karla → 2020 4. deild karla  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible redirect. "2020 4. deild karla" is an event that happened in 2020 and shouldn't be called "2017". Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 22:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Looks implausible to me. Aasim ( talk) 05:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - a bit off topic - I took a look at the article and i believe the fifth tier of Icelandic association football league doesn't pass notability guidelines. The fifth tier can't be considered fully professional. What do you think? Less Unless ( talk) 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - @ Less Unless: I am a user who almost never goes into discussions like RfD, deletion, or admins' noticeboard, but soccer/association football is one of my favorite sports, so I want to comment here. Iceland is not really a soccer/football country. Maybe their first tier is notable but if the fifth tier is not really professional I would delete this redirect and " 2020 4. deild karla". Nearly but not perfect ( talk) 20:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ I'm not perfect but I'm almost: My point exactly! Moreover most of the clubs listed in the article don't even have their own articles. I'm going to wait for more opinions and if there are no substantial reasons to keep the article, I will propose it for deletion. Thank you for your participation. Less Unless ( talk) 20:17, 7 November 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Pasadena → Pasadena, California  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There is a Pasadena in Texas just outside of Houston and that one is bigger in population than the one that is home to Caltech. Retarget to " Pasadena (disambiguation)"? Nearly but not perfect ( talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is an argument about whether the city in California is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Pasadena", rather than the city in Texas. By usage, it clearly is [1]. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No argument given that the California city shouldn't remain the PT except I guess that the Texas city is bigger, which I think is a very weak argument. MB 23:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The little old lady was from California. See also the consensus reached at Talk:Pasadena (disambiguation) § Requested move 18 September 2016. – wbm1058 ( talk) 05:14, 12 November 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. There is appetite for deletion, and not much agreement for an alternative target that resolves the ambiguity. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Antonia, daughter of Antonius → Antonia (aunt of Mark Antony)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Almost every Roman woman named Antonia is going to have a father named Antonius, this redirect is confusing as it could refer to a ton of different women. ★Trekker ( talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Antonia (name)#Roman women. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect; nobody's likely to search for this formulation, for the reason stated by ★Trekker. Was probably created by accident: someone writing this formulation in an article about Antony's grandfather, and trying to link that text to the subject, instead of simply piping it. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Would Antonius#Women of the gens make more sense than Antonia (name)#Roman woman? -- BDD ( talk) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

If anything, it would be better redirected to Antonia gens. But it still seems like a very unlikely search formulation in the first place—anyone who doesn't already know that all Roman Antoniae were daughters of someone named Antonius would search using the father's full name anyway. This formulation is a bit like "Jane, daughter of Smith". Even if you don't realize that numerous Jane Smiths are daughters of someone named Smith, anyone who speaks English well enough to type this phrase would know that there are many Smiths. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or retarget this is a {{ R from move}} that continues to get plenty of use so deletion would be harmful. I don't have an opinion about what the best target is if it isn't the present one, but it should not be deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't. As the other editor said here, it probably only gets hits to begin with b/c it appears upon making a search. Eliminate the spare redirect and the problem goes away. Avis11 ( talk) 18:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Extremely unlikely search target in itself, and all Antonias at least until the late empire were daughters of an Antonius. Avis11 ( talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• An intitle search finds that the term "daughter of" is commonly used in Wikipedia article titles. However Antonius does not redirect to Marcus Antonius the orator. Antonius is a a masculine given name article so there is no person who is primary topic for the name. That makes the current target incorrect; this is not a proper {{ R from move}} as that should only be used for moves from valid titles. If this page needs to be kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links to Antonia (aunt of Mark Antony), then it should be a {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation. Generally I would expect that to be the undisambiguated title Antonia, but that leads to a pair of double disambiguation possibilities, Antonia (name) § Roman women and Antonia (gens) § Members, both of which have been suggested above. What does the abbreviation Antonia M. f. C. n. stand for? wbm1058 ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• The former article at Antonia (daughter of orator Marcus Antonius) has content which was lost ("deleted by redirection") when it was "merged" to Antonia (aunt of Mark Antony). I don't understand why she is better known as the aunt of Mark Antony than the daughter of orator Marcus Antonius when Mark Antony is not mentioned in the article Antonia (aunt of Mark Antony), other than in the article title. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.245 ( talk) 15:51, 11 November 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Suggesting retarget to Palantir Technologies, which seems like the clear main topic here. Well known company, 150k pageviews/month (while Palantír seems to get thousands of accidental pageviews because of this redirect). Simply being named after something else doesn't account for the vast gap in search results, importance, expectations, and simply the likelihood of what the reader is looking for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Palantir Technologies: Both Google and our page views suggest that the company is the main topic. ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Wait until the move discussion at Talk:Palantír concludes. We don't want two concurrent discussions about Palantir. - Eureka Lott 15:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If the move request is successful, we still need to have this. If this is successful, it renders the move request moot. If anything, this one should happen first (besides, it's been open for more than 7 days with no consensus to move). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• If the move discussion is successful, you'll need to start a second move discussion, because Palantir will no longer be a redirect. Opening a discussion involving the same target while another is ongoing is likely to cause confusion. - Eureka Lott 15:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Whether disambiguated or not, I don't think Palantir Technologies will ever be the primary topic. Let it stay the way it is. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Given WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #1 is far and away the company, are you talking about #2? That a "fictional magical artefact from J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" has similar or greater "notability and educational value"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Wait until the RM concludes. When it is decided where the articles are then we can discuss the redirects. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• retarget to Palantir Technologies. it is clearly the primary topic. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 14:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The clear primary topic is the artefact from LotR after which the company is named. I would hazard a guess that far more people have heard of the former than the latter. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Notice: the page-move discussion has been closed. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there  20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is. Even if the software company were the ptopic (doubtful for reasons stated above by Necrothesp), I think it's more important for the typable redirect to target the base-name title with the diacritical mark per WP:DIACRITICS than it would be to adhere to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The existing hatnote at Palantír suffices to aid readers. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there  20:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom to be followed by moving the company article to the shorter title. The company is far and away the primary topic with an order of magnitude more page views but that's a discussion to follow this one. Courtesy ping for @ Thryduulf, as the RM has concluded. czar 01:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Palantir Technologies has this year received a daily average of about 2,000 views, and Palantír about 350. These pageviews show one of the topics to be more popular (which some can take to be an indicator of long-term significance), but they do not tell us anything about what readers are looking for. At the very least, the titles are different, and at least some of those looking for the company will be typing out its full name, so we can't assume that 50 or so daily hits for the redirect will be split between the two groups of readers in the same proportions as those of the articles. And Rhododendrites, the current target doesn't get "thousands of accidental pageviews" because of the redirect, at least not on a monthly basis – the figure of 350 daily hits is for the exact title with the diacritics, and it doesn't include traffic coming from the redirect. To extract some useful information from the pageviews, you could compare the huge spike in views for the company article on 30 September, when they increased 15-fold, and if you compare that to the mere five-fold increase in the views for the redirect, then this would indicate the company is sought by less than one third of users of the redirect (assuming that the traffic on that day hasn't come exclusively from an incoming link).
  Still, the redirect gets 1/7th the views of the target, and that's more than usual, so it may well be true that a significant proportion of users of the redirect are looking for the company. I don't see a case for a permanent change in primary topic from the meagre available data, but there definitely is a case for gathering more. The usual should do – converting the redirect into a dab page, where the links are piped via otherwise unused redirects, and seeing what traffic each gets after a month. – Uanfala (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • it doesn't include traffic coming from the redirect - interesting. I would've assumed that a redirect would log a pageview for the redirect and the article, no? Regardless, a disambiguation test sounds reasonable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Traffic from a redirect only logs views for that redirect (see for example the description of Redirect Views at meta:Pageviews Analysis). – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom. The company definitely seems to be the primary topic for the search term, I had to look quite hard in the first few pages of Google hits to find hits which weren't related to it. Palantir Technologies can have a hatnote pointing to the current target. Hut 8.5 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This redirect is more of a plausible term of the current target, so where is the proof of retargeting to Palantir Technologies? Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 17:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• keep per P.I Ellsworth. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per P.I Ellsworth. move request concluded. The company is named after the fictional item. "named after the mythical spying stone" [2] Hatnote already exists. Kind of like arguing that Apple Computer should be primary topic over Apple because it has a lot more pageviews in searches. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Paine Ellsworth's point about the diacritic is a good one - the company is correctly self-disambiguated by the fact that they're actually "Palantir Technologies" rather than just "Palantir", and given the company is named after it anyway, I think it's best for the unaccented page name to point to the object. AngusWoof's analogy of Apple/Apple Computer is also a good one - a reader who searches too vaguely and finds the object something is named after is unlikely to be frustrated, as long as there's a hatnote. ~ mazca ^talk 13:01, 7 November 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Cindy Dock → Alex de Minaur  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Pointless redirect to a pupil of redirected tennis coach, unremarkable search term, coach could have taught others, why has it been redirected here? Night fury 11:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - This isn't a "pointless redirect", De Minaur is her only notable pupil, the article on her was deleted, she is mentioned in his article (and not elsewhere) and this is an entirely appropriate redirect. Dock herself was a professional tennis player but her best known work is as de Minaur's coach. Deus et lex ( talk) 12:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. No policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The redirect looks totally reasonable. Less Unless ( talk) 18:31, 7 November 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 no consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Romanian counties infobox → Template:Infobox settlement  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

unused, and not a standard name for an infobox template TerraCyprus ( talk) 02:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Template:Counties (judete) of Romania. Perfectly plausible redirect. The fact that it is "unused" is not enough reason for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ CycloneYoris: Template:Counties (judete) of Romania is not an infobox at all. The fact that it is "unused" is not enough reason for deletion true, that is why the nomination did include more than that fact. TerraCyprus ( talk) 23:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ TerraCyprus: Doesn't matter, it still lists "Romanian counties" which is what readers are searching for. There's not much of a difference between an infobox and a navbox anyway, so the casual reader probably won't notice the difference. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep As the page history shows, this was once the name of an infobox, which was renamed. That template was then merged into the target of the nominated redirect, and it is correct that it remain so. The opinion that it is not a "standard" name is immaterial. 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

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 disambiguate -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Liyue → Genshin Impact#Setting  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

While this is a name of a plot element in Genshin Impact, it's also a name in its own right that appears in a few different articles on Wikipedia. I would suggest deletion to allow for uninhibited search results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Search results for Liyue. Most of them are names, one is part of an explanatory footnote, and one is part of a cited book. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

DABIfy, if there are multiple possible terms associated with this term, I suggest listing all of them instead of deleting outright. If not, then Keep, I created this redirect in good faith as this term is strongly associated with Genshin Impact. See https://www.bing.com/search?q=liyue&cvid=b40a61385dbe4dae9b9c0c69bf3dae47&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=W000 and https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=enekX5POIsugsQXD76KoCA&q=liyue&oq=liyue&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzILCAAQsQMQgwEQyQMyBQgAELEDMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMggIABCxAxCDATIHCAAQsQMQCjIICC4QxwEQrwEyBQguELEDMgIIADoICC4QxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOggILhCxAxCDAToFCAAQyQM6AgguOgQIABAKOhIIABCxAxCDARDJAxAKEEYQ-QE6BwguELEDEApQ1QFYwwpggAtoAnAAeACAAc8BiAGJBZIBBTAuMy4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiT8-eAtezsAhVLUKwKHcO3CIUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5 Aasim ( talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think that the other mentions on Wikipedia merit the creation of a disambiguation page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Me neither. Search shows that Genshin Impact is its only real use. Aasim ( talk) 18:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate per draft at the current redirect (thanks to Aasim). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Don't give me credit for it! Thank the IP listed in the history! :D Aasim ( talk) 04:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Oh, yes, sorry. Thanks to 61.239.39.90. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:19, 11 November 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. The vagueness of the whole title, added to the vagueness of the term "hp", leads to a consensus that this is too ambiguous to be a suitable redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Most hp → List of production cars by power output  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Vague search term, could also refer to the horsepower of other types of engines, video game hit points. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As someone who isn't into automobiles, I've have assumed this is about video games. Confusing redirect. Scrooge200 ( talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. "Horsepower" is only used for production cars these days. Power figures for commercial/industrial engines, home appliances or in physics are usually given in watt. "Most HP" as in "hit points" does not make sense as a search term because hit points are not comparable across different video games, so this only makes sense when further specified. This redirect exists because it is the most common way people search for the information provided on this list, according to Google Trends. [3] Andibrema ( talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as ambiguous; see my comment at Highest horsepower, immediately above. Narky Blert ( talk) 07:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: HP can refer to too many things, and this redirect is too implausible and ambiguous. HP can mean Horsepower, Hit points, Health Performance, Hewlett Packard, etc. Aasim ( talk) 18:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The term "most hp" does not make any sense for any of the named cases, though: Most hit points (hit points are not comparable across different video games), most "health performance" (Who even uses this term in the first place? What is it supposed to mean? I could not find anything), most Hewlett-Packard (Huh?) - none of these are a thing. Andibrema ( talk) 19:07, 11 November 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• 2014 European Men's Junior Handball Championship → European Men's Junior Handball Championship  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

useless redirection: no detailled results of this edition are given in the main article. Consequently, the redirection can be deleted.-- LeFnake ( talk) 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. No valid reason for deletion, given that results for this edition do appear at target article. This also seems to be an {{ R with history}} since it was initially created as an article in 2014. CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:RFD#D10 to encourage article (re)creation. The very minimal amount of information found on the current target can be found using search, and it would be much better. Alternatively restore the old article and send to AFD or improve as required. But I think deletion is fine as the article contained very little information and was mostly made before the event took place. A7V2 ( talk) 00:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete consistent with the other redlinks on that page, and variants thereof (e.g. 2013 European Men's Junior Handball Championship). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:12, 11 November 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. Not mentioned in the target, and while possibly technically plausible, apparently not the only battle there. ~ mazca ^talk 18:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Battle of Puigcerdà → Catalonia Offensive#Retreat  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Battle of Puigcerda → Catalonia Offensive#Retreat  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• Battle of Puigcerdá → Catalonia Offensive#Retreat  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no matches on Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as ambiguous and to encourage article creation. Puigcerdà is mentioned only once, in passing, in ca:Ofensiva de Catalunya, the Catalan equivalent to the current target in English WP. There were other conflicts at Puigcerdà than the one in 1939 (which has no article in Catalan WP): ca:Setge de Puigcerdà (1654), ca:Setge de Puigcerdà (1667) and ca:Setge de Puigcerdà (1873). Setge means "siege"; but the text of the 1873 article calls it battalla, "battle", and ca:Batalla de Puigcerdà redirects there; and the infobox of the 1654 article says batalla i setge. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:09, 6 November 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. Participants have not really been able to come up with much evidence that this battle occurred during this uprising, making for an inaccurate redirect. It is certainly not mentioned at the target. ~ mazca ^talk 18:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Battle of Yambol → September Uprising  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target or any of its interwiki-linked articles. A Google Scholar search returns 1 result, seemingly about an unrelated 15th century battle. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• The Bulgarian article doesn't mention any battles at Yambol during this uprising. There appear to have been a battle there in 1410 (mentioned in Stefan Lazarević#Civil war between Musa and Suleiman), and apparently also a siege in 1373 (not mentioned in Bulgarian–Ottoman wars#Battle of Chernomen and its consequences). It was burned down during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), but I don't see any mentions of a battle. – Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In addition to Uanfala's evidence: bg:Ямбол mentions the 1373 siege, and as regards the 1878 fire says "There were no battles for the conquest of the city" (За превземането на града не са водени боеве). It doesn't mention any battle at all, either in 1410 (also not mentioned in bg:Стефан Лазаревич) or during the 1923 uprising. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:04, 6 November 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. Not mentioned in the target despite some research to try and determine if it should be. ~ mazca ^talk 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Battle of Vámospércs → Hungarian Soviet Republic  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, Google Scholar search results did not turn up anything meaningful. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Neither the current target nor its Hungarian equivalent, hu:Magyarországi Tanácsköztársaság, mentions Vámospércs. Hungarian WP has no article (its title would be Vámospércs csata). The closest I could get was hu:Debreceni csata (1849), which mentions Vámospércs in connection with the campaign which led up to the Battle of Debrecen (1849). Narky Blert ( talk) 08:22, 6 November 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Usawk → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Oyfg → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Lwpimp → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Gimh → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Ttly → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Tmth → Internet slang  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A bunch of obscure chat speak abbreviations. They were all created in the earlier days of Wikipedia as very short articles explaining the meaning of the abbreviation, then quickly redirected as an apparent easy alternative to deletion. There's no content about them on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Ttly is also apparently misspelt; I don't think it's plausible enough to redirect to ttyl. On an unrelated note – for the benefit of those who are feeling bored – Internet slang has a number of similar incoming redirects, anyone interested in digging in? – Uanfala (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: unverified abbreviations, does not make sense to keep. Aasim ( talk) 18:39, 9 November 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Environmental causes → Xenohormone  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

"Environmental causes" is so broad that xenohormone is not the only possible target. Note that this redirect has historical content which appeared to be merged to Xenoestrogen. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 16:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Looks to be a good target for a disambiguation page. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to suggest articles. Remove the redirect though. Per nom-- intelati ^talk 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate per above. funplussmart ( talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is ambiguous and the redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete in this case, the disambiguation page is likely to be very large indeed, so I think Shhhnotsoloud's suggestion of deleting is better. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a phrase that's too generic for a redirect or disambiguation page to make sense. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: terrible redirect. Aasim ( talk) 18:38, 9 November 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 moot. The article will be relisted at AFD, so this discussion about the redirect created on top of it is now moot. T. Canens ( talk) 14:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Burn It All → Christian Olde Wolbers  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Burn it All → Christian Olde Wolbers  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A defunct band with no releases. No reason to redirect to this band member in preference to either of the other two, Patrick Lachman or Raymond Herrera, except as an attempt to defy the recent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn it All and its imminent endorsement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 25. Delete in the spirit of WP:XY. — Cryptic 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• keep per WP:CHEAP. Better to have it go somewhere than nowhere. Hobit ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete don't see any reason to prefer Christian Olde Wolbers as a target over the other two band members. The article on Patrick Lachman does also mention that he was in the band. The search results will at least pick up the mentions in both members' articles. Hut 8.5 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. It is standard practice for a band name to redirect to a notable band member. Someone once said that one should either point the term to the most prominent band member, or that if all members are equal, to flip a coin to decide to which band member the term should point. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, redirects are cheap. Stifle ( talk) 09:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No clear cut target. Barely a mention in any article. Per WP:XY, "search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Unlike the other two band members, Olde Wolbers has a paragraph dedicated to Burn it All with links to the other two band members. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete the paragraph about it in Olbers' biography isn't really reliably sourced and is barely a mention regardless. I don't think this qualifies per WP:XY, plus I've just argued at DRV that the article be restored at least for now due to the recent discovery of the nominator as a sock, meaning this discussion may end up being moot. SportingFlyer T· C 13:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Reply - The paragraph about Burn It All is now sourced. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - To the closing administrator: The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn it All was blocked as a sock, therefore, the AfD is now improper. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 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 Refine section. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weissrussland → White_Ruthenia#Name  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Redirect to non-existent section. Perhaps refine to the history section. 180.183.23.213 ( talk) 03:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Refine section obviously. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 19:46, 5 November 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why Don't You (swallow a handful of someone else's pills)? → The First Seven Inches  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There is no indication that the (non-notable) song "Someone Else's Pills" had this title. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 17:52, 5 November 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.