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 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Si Vis Pacem, Para Gellum → Star Trek: Discovery (season 1)#ep8  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible typo, the episode title is "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum". I see no reason why this could not have been speedy deleted. -- / Alex/ ₂₁ 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree with Alex's reasoning. - adamstom97 ( talk) 00:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as an implausible typo. Speedy deletion of implausible redirects is restricted to those created recently because long-established redirects are more likely to be plausible (for reasons unknown to the nominator) and/or useful in some other way (e.g. incoming links) than new redirects. While those don't apply to this specific redirect, speedy deletion criteria requirements mean that everything that could be deleted under them should be deleted, which would not be the case without the temporal aspect of this criterion. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:23, 18 October 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 retarget to Fatal error. This didn't even need a discussion, retarget could have been done WP:BOLDly. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• FATAL ERROR → Fatal exception error  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Maybe the disambiguation page Fatal error is a better target? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to the dab, I agree that's better. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom as alternative spelling/caps-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:29, 17 October 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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Should this title be a redirect to Pier (the structure), be a DAB page (move Piers (disambiguation) to here) or host an article on the name (move Piers (name) back here). This redirect was created as a redirect to the structure in 2004 and for a few weeks in 2007 was about a company. In 2012 it was turned into an article about the name. In June this year the category for the structures was accidentally added due to a match in title. Yesterday I filed a RMT to either have it redirect to the structure or the DAB be moved to the base name. The base name was then redirected to the structure but then changed by another user to point back to the name. Views yesterday showed the name gets 374 views but the structure has 3,844, PIERS: The Port Import/Export Reporting Service has 211 and the island has 102. I would note that as of today Piers Morgan has 59,004 (over 15x as many as the structure). I would note that when I Google Piers all but the Wikipedia article Pier are for Morgan. Images mainly returns the structure and Books also mainly appears to show the structure. Apart from 5 for the name it appears all the other 45 are for the structure. I'm fine with either there being no primary topic (like Walls) or the structure being primary (like Cars) but the name being primary is a bit silly per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Disambig. No primary topic here. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Anybody looking for the structure would type "Pier" and be very unlikely to add an "s" on the end. If someone has typed "Piers" with an "s" then it's fairly obvious they are looking for the name, and that's what they would have found until very recent unnecessary moves. The disambiguation page is pretty much redundant as everything on it is was a name anyway. -- 94.196.88.234 ( talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think there is sufficient evidence that readers are looking for the name. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires that either a topic be far more likely to be searched or is far more important. By the 1st criteria its certainly true that someone could be looking for the name (which isn't obscure) but at the same time the structure is far more important and what "Piers" would usually be expected to mean and would be primary by the 2nd criteria. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Yes, the plural form makes the structure a lot less likely to be what readers are looking for, but it doesn't completely eliminate it. The name isn't very likely to be sought by readers either: it's mostly known as a given name, so people with the name aren't likely to be known mononymously by it. There's also one or two more obscure articles with the name – I've just added (back) some of them. All in all, I don't see a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Dabify I'm not seeing evidence for a primary topic either. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 23:51, 17 October 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. Elsewhere, consensus to split or otherwise include a mention of this individual has not formed. The name is not mentioned at the target, so the previous default outcome to delete seems to be the correct decision again. Should this consensus change, and this name be explicitly mentioned in this or another article again, then this discussion does not in any way prevent it being once again recreated. ~ mazca ^talk 19:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Kwan Ka-wing → Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (November 2019)#2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Previously deleted following this listing, recreated as a redirect to 2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho with the justification that Ka-wing is now a major figure within the article. That article, however, was converted to a redirect back to the current target, and we are once again left without a mention of Kwan Ka-wing at the target. Delete unless a sourced mention is added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I encourage anyone weighing in on this, including Rosguill to participate in the split discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (November 2019)#Split request for "2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho" as the fate of this redirect more or less hinges on that discussion—which was stagnant until notice of this RfD. The redirect has come full circle since the last RfD because a true consensus there was not clear, temporarily restoring the redirect. Reaching consensus there would make this discussion pretty clear. - 2pou ( talk) 05:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't really have an opinion on the underlying issue; it makes sense to keep this discussion open until the split request has been resolved. If discussion stalls without end in sight, I think we should delete the redirect with the understanding that it can be recreated if a consensus for including a mention of Kwan Ka-wing at an article ever forms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment the linked split discussion has not received any new comments since 16 October (10 days ago). It's probably time to move on with this discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:58, 26 October 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 Thryduulf ( talk) 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Raymond Hui Chi-fung → Hui Chi-fung  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of any Raymond at this page other than Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, a different person apparently notable in their own right. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He is known as Ted, not Raymond. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 06:21, 25 October 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 20:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Camel spider (Dungeons and Dragons) → Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Recommend deleting per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. The redirect has no significant history, and the monster isn't mentioned at the target article. Indeed, no spider of any type is. BDD ( talk) 16:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The current target article has never mentioned a camel spider. The redirect previously pointed to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (now a redirect to the monsters article following a 2019 AfD), but that article doesn't seem to have ever mentioned it either. It was created by Hasteurbot as part of it's "task 13" but I can't find what that was and its operator died earlier this year so they will be unable to elucidate. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:38, 18 October 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 20:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Americans with Abilities Act → Discrimination against superheroes  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is an {{ R without mention}} and without significant page history. At a glance, the target article seems to never have discussed a fictional law with this name. Unlike names such as "Superhero Registration Act", this is not immediately recognizable as an element of fiction, and is likely to confuse readers. I recommend deletion. -- BDD ( talk) 15:15, 16 October 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 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Tallest hong kong → List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Found another tallest redirect. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 13:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Hong Kong: Hong Kong is the tallest Hong Kong in the world. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 3297 Hong Kong has a diameter of 16km, so it's probably taller. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Quickly nuke it per nom to make it consistent with other tallest redlinks. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Tallest redirects. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 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 withdrawn, now mentioned. Thanks, Duc4Wikmedia! (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Left Coast Productions → Kevin Falls  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:59, 16 October 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 withdrawn, now mentioned. Thanks! (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Right Coast Productions → Barry Sonnenfeld  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:59, 16 October 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) 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Sacred Congregation of Induglences and Sacred Relics → Congregation (Roman Curia)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

On behalf of Medusahead. The original reasoning is: "the title contains two swapped letters, it is indulgence not induglence. The redirection in correct spelling already exists." I have no opinion on this. Techie3 ( talk) 08:03, 16 October 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 no trace of any support for keeping this redirect or its content. I'm generally in support of the principle that blank-and-redirected articles are best restored and sent to AfD, but only if there's some actual trace of disagreement about whether the content belongs somewhere. Nobody is standing up for the content of this redirected article, and I'd genuinely feel slightly bad wasting AfD's time with it. While acknowledging the slight breach of process, I'm comfortable making the judgement that this article would not stand a snowball's chance in hell at AfD, and deleting it based on this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• List of Planets in Alien Films → Alien (film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This was formerly a stub article created back in 2017, until it was redirected shortly after to its current target, which contains no such list (which I can't seem to find on Wikipedia), and didn't contain it at the time. There is a section about planets in the film's design, but I'm not sure about refining there, so maybe delete unless someone can find a better target. Regards, SONIC 678 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore list per WP:BLAR without prejudice to AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete there’s no chance that such an unsourced list would possible survive an AFD so I see no reason to restore the article for pure bureaucracy.-- 76.67.169.43 ( talk) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It isn't pure bureaucracy, it's about giving editors interested in articles like this the chance to see it and potentially improve it (e.g. by adding sources). RfD should only be used to delete article content in 2 circumstances: (1) when there has been a consensus that the content should not be an article, and (2) when the content would be speedily deleted as an article. Given that neither apply here, deletion via RfD is unjustifiable. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore and send to AfD per standard procedure. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Textbook WP:SNOW case. The list only briefly existed, and obviously fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. -- BDD ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The list was in awful shape and should not be restored for reasons alluded to above. That being said, I'm surprised that Nikkimaria decided to push this under the rug by creating a misleading redirect—because there is no such list at Alien (film)—instead of pursuing its deletion (especially since it was originally contested). I'd be interested in hearing from her in case there is something I'm missing. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• IIRC (this was several years ago) it was based on the section noted by the OP which could house such material. I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, BLAR applies when there's a disagreement over whether the content merited blanking, not for when we're questioning the utility of the redirect itself 3 years after the fact. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's for all cases where there was article content replaced by a redirect without discussion. And anyway there are two editors here at least (myself and LaundryPizza03) whose recommendations can reasonably taken as disagreement with the blanking. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

    The text of BLAR pretty clearly says If other editors disagree with this blanking, and then goes on to describe ways to resolve disagreements about article content; it doesn't say anything about objections to the redirect's utility. If you genuinely think that the list is worth saving and would vouch for it if taken to AfD then I think invoking BLAR is valid, but if your objection is purely procedural and you're not interested in defending the page's content prior to blanking I don't think it applies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply

    • My interest is ensuring that deletion occurs according to the principles of Wikipedia, which include no content being deleted without consensus at an appropriate venue. RfD is not and never has been an appropriate venue to discus article content, including because discussions here do not alert interested users appropriately. Whether I think it should be kept or deleted at AfD is irrelevant. Additionally, WP:BLAR actually says "the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input.". Further input has been sought at RfD and everyone is agreed that the redirect is not appropriate so the next step is restoring the article content adn nominating it at AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:03, 26 October 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. It might be helpful to consider such redirects in a batch later. -- BDD ( talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Eka-barium → Radium  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target; doesn't seem to be used. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 00:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Add content somewhere. It's trivially verifiable that prior to the discovery of Radium it was predicted to exist and "Eka-barium" was the placeholder name for it. We don't currently have anywhere to send this redirect, but we should. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• If kept, retarget to Mendeleev's predicted elements, which is where the coverage of the eka- element predictions is and where the main predictions redirect to. (Maybe the ones that don't should likewise be RfDed.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Hmmm. This book suggets eka-barium turned out to be an isotope of Barium, so I'm not sure that Mendeleev's predicted elements is great, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • But then this calls eka-barium radium. Maybe there have been multiple things known as eka-barium. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and mention it in the target article's history section (which I will try to do myself if I have time). This redirect is correct and unambiguous, and consistent with other redirects for placeholder names. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oof. Well, this isn't what I was expecting. I'm now totally unsure myself what's best here, so I'm fine with whatever I guess. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, see Eka-caesium, which also redirects to Francium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gioguch ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 October 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 deleted by Graeme Bartlett per G8. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Wolfram Alpha → Category:WolframAlpha  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused template redirecting to redlinked category page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:42, 16 October 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.