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) Qwerfjkl talk 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• 长沙地铁1号线 → Line 1 (Changsha Metro)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• 长沙地铁二号线 → Line 2 (Changsha Metro)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Implausible foreign-language redirect. Numbered and lettered train lines IMHO do not make plausible redirects in foreign languages. This will just cause more confusion to those who do not realize they are searching the English Wikipedia from the wikipedia.org home page. Aasim ( talk) 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. These appear to be valid native-language names for the targets. - Eureka Lott 19:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep it is highly likely that people searching for English language information on a foreign topic that has a native non-English name would search using those terms -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 19:53, 25 December 2021 (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 delete. Speedy deleted as a broken redirect, CSD G8. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Draft:Move/Antonia (kidnapped by pirates) → Antonia (daugher of orator Marcus Antonius)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect created to fix a mess I made after a misunderstanding later clarified by another user to me. Discussion is here. I am also the only contributor to this redirect and it is recent so that's a reason by itself. Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 24 December 2021 (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 Chinese government response to COVID-19. (non-admin closure) Politrukki ( talk) 15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• China COVID-19 cover-up allegations → COVID-19 misinformation by China  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

My understanding is that the AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China COVID-19 cover-up allegations) was more about getting the article to stop being an article, rather than a specific consensus that the chosen target was actually the appropriate one. Since the AfD closed, Chinese government response to COVID-19 was moved to mainspace, and its draftspace version was a popular merge target in the AfD.

A previous merge discussion found issues with redirecting to COVID-19 misinformation by China, namely that the two aren't the same thing. Basically, I'm starting this RfD to ascertain whether it would be more appropriate to have the redirect target as Chinese government response to COVID-19 rather than COVID-19 misinformation by China. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Chinese government response to COVID-19. In the AfD discussion I supported redirecting to the misinformation article for lack of a better target, but now that the government response article has been moved to mainspace, it's a better target. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 13:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Chinese government response to COVID-19. More appropriate target that is no longer a draft. It is also, overall, a better and more precise target for the cover-up link. Given that a cover-up is a type of response. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 15:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Chinese government response to COVID-19: This article has a better scope to cover the content in question. –– FormalDude ^talk 07:12, 25 December 2021 (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. I withdraw these - I was clearly mistaken. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Onenote.com → Microsoft OneNote  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term; per WP:COSTLY. Qwerfjkl talk 11:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This domain belongs to Microsoft OneNote (and is mentioned in the article). What's implausible? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 12:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - redirecting URLs to their owners seems entirely sensible. It's something a onenote user might reasonably search for. User:GKFX ^talk 12:29, 24 December 2021 (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. I withdraw these - I was clearly mistaken. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Pypi.org → Python Package Index  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term; per WP:COSTLY. Qwerfjkl talk 11:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This is literally the website of pypi though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 12:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep – seems like a plausible search term to me. It's the URL of the website that the article is about. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - redirecting URLs to their owners seems entirely sensible. User:GKFX ^talk 12:28, 24 December 2021 (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. I withdraw these - I was clearly mistaken. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Gist.github.com → GitHub#Gist  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term; per WP:COSTLY. Qwerfjkl talk 11:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - redirecting URLs to their owners is sensible and a plausible search. User:GKFX ^talk 12:30, 24 December 2021 (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. I withdraw these - I was clearly mistaken. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Opensource.microsoft.com → Microsoft and open source  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term; per WP:COSTLY. Qwerfjkl talk 11:36, 24 December 2021 (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. ✗ plicit 14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• China COVID-19 attempts to cover up → COVID-19 misinformation by China  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

In my opinion, too verbose to be a plausible search term. This is left over from a reverted page move. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Awkward phrasing; a more natural phrasing already exists, and can be found by search: " China COVID-19 cover-up allegations". User:GKFX ^talk 12:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and it's POV. – The Grid ( talk) 22:46, 27 December 2021 (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. ✗ plicit 01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Validity of Catholic Church Authority → Sacred tradition  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I do not know what it this redirect is supposed to refer to, and what is mentioned in the Catholic Church section of the article it leads to does not relate to the redirect. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The AfD that led to the redirect is this: WP:Articles for deletion/Validity of Catholic Church Authority. Jay (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The admin at the time who closed the AfD and turned the article into a redirect stated: "result was: Redirect to Sacred Tradition". However, it is absolutely not what the result of the AfD was: all opinions were in favour of deleting apart from one which suggested a delete and a redirect. This AfD result supports even more my proposal to delete this redirect. Veverve ( talk) 00:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Pinging the closing admin Quarl who was last seen in March. However, there was no objection by any one to the closure as Redirect. Jay (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the result of the aforementioned AfD. -- Zander251 ( talk) 02:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 19:27, 24 December 2021 (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.