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 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Chem-O → Marine chemistry  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Chem-o → Marine chemistry  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No evidence this is a common abbreviation for chemical oceanography, which was recently merged with the current target. Could be confused for chemotherapy (suppported by top Google hits) or other topics (perhaps even O-chem). Either delete to avoid confusion, or retarget to the disambiguation page Chemo and add an appropriate entry there for chemical oceanography. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Specific "Chem-o" searches lead to company listings or "chem-o-(something)" events and stuff like "chem-o-halloween" a chemistry inspired halloween event. Alternatively, it can be a weak retarget to chemotherapy as a plausible misspelling-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Retargeting to chemotherapy as a misspelling doesn't make sense, given that Chemo does not redirect there. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually, I just boldly moved the dab page and made Chemo a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to chemotherapy. But, I still don't think retargeting to chemotherapy as a misspelling is a good choice, if retargeted it should go to the dab page as an ambiguous term. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - Neither of these seem worth keeping at all to me. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:36, 28 May 2022 (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. Jay (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Ihor Zhovkva → Ukraine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Igor Zhovkva → Ukraine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) but likely notable, and thus should be deleted until editors are ready to add actual information about him to Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep and add to article OR create article - Notable political figure should be mentioned at Ukraine or have their own article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  If he's notable enough for an independent article, that would be an example of WP:R#DELETE reason for deletion #10, the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete he seems to be the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine which might warrant an article -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Lenticel. Both redirects are useless if the subject is not mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:11, 1 June 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | never forget 04:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Poor housing → Slum  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Poor housing projects → Affordable housing  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The term "poor housing" doesn't seem to be clear on what it is meant to refer. For one, these two redirects target two topics that are almost exclusive from each other, considering Affordable housing is not always part of a Slum. In addition, the phrase seems to not specifically refer to either target of these redirects. (The article Slum does have the phrase "poor hous*" [* = wild card] mentioned a few times, but not in a way where the subject of the redirect and the target are synonyms or identified as a subtopic of the other.) With the current scenario, it would probable be better to delete both of these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers find what subject they are attempting to locate rather than pigeonhole them into arriving to these articles. (Also, the similar redirect Poor housing project does not exist.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate between affordable housing (poor, not rich) and substandard housing (poor, not good) ;; condemned property should probably be in there somehow -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Dabify per anon. I agree that the redirects are vague but I think the proposed dab covers most of its potential uses -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:01, 24 May 2022 (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. Jay (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Misspelling of "se'or", an ancient Hebrew word for starter dough that is sometimes compared to sourdough starter. No longer mentioned at the target, as the information was undue (full disclosure: I removed it Special:Diff/1083580388)--delete unless/until duly sourced information can be added somewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment discussed at five species of grain and Eliminating Ḥametz, maybe we could retarget to one of those. I don't see any other competing meanings for the sentence-case "seor". For SEOR there's a few mentions of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (Sociedad Española de Oncología Radioterápica) but even disregarding WP:DIFFCAPS none of them would make a good target. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 02:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Eliminating Ḥametz seems like a good target, and possibly the first time I have ever seen that diacritic in a title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I take that back: Eliminating Ḥametz is a CFORK of Bdikat chametz and should be merged to there. None of the references to se'or seemed mergeable, so now the only mention of it is at five species of grain, which mentions but doesn't really define or discuss se'or, so I'm on the fence about whether targeting there is preferable to deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to a lack of content. The one mention that Rosguill points out is not sufficient enough for a redirect because it is mentioned in passing without proper context. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and Tavix. The lack of proper content at the target makes this redirect completely useless, especially for the casual reader, who may not know what the redirect is referring to. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:17, 1 June 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 12:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Erik Young → Eric Young  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is a very old redirect that probably dates from the time that there was only one Eric Young article. Now, given the number of Eric Youngs we have, the redirect to the dab page isn't a good one anymore. agtx 18:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Why should there being a disambiguation page Eric Young mean this should be deleted? It seems a likely search term for any of the people listed on that page. Also I have reverted your removal of the RfD template replacing it with a double redirect to Eric Young (disambiguation), I'm not sure why you did that? A7V2 ( talk) 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  The double redirect appears to be a bug in a disambiguation repair script that I didn't know about. I won't use that feature again.

  As far as the redirect, it felt odd to me to have a "redirect from a misspelling" just because we presently happen not to have an Erik Young article. Isn't there a decent chance a user is looking for an actual Erik Young and winds up confused? agtx 02:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I think that if it were the other way around (i.e. if the target were Erik Young and the redirect were Eric Young) I would support keep as Eric is a common misspelling of Erik, but I am not convinced of it in the reverse and with there being no Erik Young at target it is a bit of WP:SURPRISE. Tartar Torte 00:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep redirect to Eric Young as a {{ R from typo}} -- 65.92.247.17 ( talk) 03:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep plausible homophone/ spelling variant -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I did not understand how having one Eric Young or multiple is a rationale to remove the redirect, since it has been pointing to the target (which is a disambiguation) from the very start. If we had an actual Erik Young article with that spelling, I would agree to the surprise / confusion part. Whether Erik can be considered as a misspelling for Eric is up for debate. I do see Erik Adams, Erik Bloodaxe and Erik Clapton redirecting to their corresponding Eric spellings. Jay (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2022 (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 Agenor. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | never forget 04:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Αγήνωρ → Agenor (disambiguation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

It looks like the topics referred to by the Greek version should be limited to Agenor (mythology), but perhaps Agenor, the primary topic for the name in Latin letters, should be the primary topic for the Greek spelling too. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Agenor - Given that Agenor the Phoenician king appears to be primarily known from Greek historical records, and that his name is given in Ancient Greek at that target, I would wager that's the primary topic in Greek, and is already disambiguated with a hatnote at Agenor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Agenor per Rosguill. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 1 June 2022 (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.