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 / procedural close. The targeted article in question was moved by RTG. Feel free to renominate, but it will likely not gain much traction. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 22:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Why does the Universe exist? → Problem of why there is anything at all  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

I am relisting this separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that this redirect receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on this redirect:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as " Why is the sky blue?" or " What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: A Google Books search shows that this phrase is found in very few books, and in inconsistent contexts. (A simple Google Books search turns up many matches, because Google Books will approximate a search even if it is put in quotation marks; you have to actually check the individual entries to see if the phrase occurs.) — the Man in Question (in question) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep because the redirect phrase is actually a fairly plausible rewording of the question in the title of the target article. Although presumably it should be changed to point at Why is there anything at all so as not to double redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, reasonable alternative name of the topic. Article could as easily be titled this. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Why is Mars red → Mars surface color  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Why is Mars red? → Mars surface color  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Why Mars is red → Mars surface color  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as " Why is the sky blue?" or " What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: I feel like "Why is Mars red" is just like "How many ounces are in a pound?"—a reasonable and probably fairly common search for Google, but not a valid redirect for Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, as was pointed out in a previous RfD, it's arguably a more intuitive title than the actual article title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Rosguill and it being a very plausible search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:21, 25 July 2019 (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) 21:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• What is the nature of life? → Meaning of life  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• What is the nature of reality? → Meaning of life  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• What is the reason to live? → Meaning of life  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• What is the significance of life? → Meaning of life  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• What is the value of life? → Meaning of life  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as " Why is the sky blue?" or " What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: I agree that " What is the meaning of life?" and " What is the meaning of life" are worthwhile redirects because they are actually questions that are notable in and of themselves, and I did not nominate them. The questions listed in this nom, however, are not famous questions in and of themselves. The "nature of life" questions could, in fact, just as easily (and needlessly) redirect to Life or Abiogenesis, since they sound as much scientific as existential. "What is the reason to live?" is as much suggestive of suicide prevention as it is of the meaning of life. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete all – "What is the significance of life" and "what is the value of life" are very awkwardly phrased and appear to have very little usage. The two "nature" redirects don't even seem to be asking the same question. And I agree with nom that the "reason to live" sounds more like suicidal ideation than a metaphysical question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 19 July 2019 (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. Deleted by Anthony Bradbury per R3. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Abrahahm lincon → Abraham Lincoln  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Abraham Lincol → Abraham Lincoln  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Implausible. While an argument might be made for Abraham lincon as a repeat misspelling, the second h here makes it useless. These both were in fact deleted in 2009, but mystifyingly recreated in 2018. As for the second, to quote from an editor in the original discussion, "Why not leave off the final letter of any article title? Let's do that to George Washingto while we're at it." — the Man in Question (in question) 09:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as implausible and per WP:PANDORA. No need to ensure that all instances of lazy or incomplete typing have redirects; for many users, the search bar should already be able to point readers to the correct title in instances such as these. ComplexRational ( talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. First one for WP:RTYPO multiple typos. Second one for Bingo (folk song) or Gaston (song) issues. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I went to close this, but I see that I was the one quoted from the previous discussion (with the awful joke mercifully removed), so now I feel too WP:INVOLVED to close. So instead, I'll give my thoughts (10 years later): I think the fact that Abraham Lincol was recreated demonstrates plausibility because multiple editors found it useful enough to create now ( WP:R#K5), but I don't think it's worth fighting over. I definitely think Abrahahm lincon is implausible per WP:RTYPO though. Speaking of awful jokes, be sure to check out a few of my other comments from the log of the previous discussion. I must have been in a reallllly good mood that day ( Christmas Eve might have something to do with it). -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per all. Could be speedied per G4 given that the prior discussion had responses and thus does not constitute a soft delete. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per G4, per John M Wolfson. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:48, 19 July 2019 (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) 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• List of StarFox planets and locations → Star Fox  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Star Fox planets → Star Fox  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Star Fox locations → Star Fox  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Star Fox locations. → Star Fox  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No such list in article. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. Only List of Star Fox locations has any significant history and that looks like unsourced fancruft which wasn't merged anywhere. PC78 ( talk) 17:20, 22 July 2019 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Biohazard 1 → Resident Evil (1996 video game)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Too easily confused for Biosafety level#Biosafety level 1. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• There's already a hatnote to Biological hazard which is a different article but appears to cover the exact same thing (at least in this context). PC78 ( talk) 18:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• The issue is, I don't see why it needs a hatnote when "Biohazard 1" isn't a legitimate name just a typo. (The game is simply called, Biohazard). As a typo that could potentially cause confusion, it might be better off deleted and letting the search function do its job. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Also remove associated 2nd hatnote at Resident Evil (1996 video game). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep given the existence of multiple Biohazard games, searching for the first game under this name is very plausible, and this is supported by it being by far the primary topic when searching for this exact phrase. The hatnote (which should remain) deals with any possible confusion (it's the entire purpose of hatnotes existing). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Given the pageviews, I'd say it's actually very implausible. The fact of the matter is, 99.999% of visitors already know the games are called Resident Evil in English. Given that, the usefulness of having a "Biohazard 1" redirect when it could be easily confused is doubtful. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Well that 99.999% figure is a significant exaggeration, but it doesn't matter what proportion of people use the redirect only that it helps the people who do - and it clearly does, as backed up by evidence such as google results. The claim of confusion is however not plausible given the existence of the hatnote. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Puebla capital → Puebla (city)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect is an artifact of a move war; unused; delete. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As the city is the capital of Puebla state this is a perfectly plausible search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (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 with no consensus on a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Cheolwon County → Cheorwon County  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Cheolwon County is a divided county between South Korea and North Korea. So We need neutral Article about Two Cheolwon Counties. Sugyoin ( talk) 05:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Likes Gangwon Province (historical), We need a neutral article. -- Sugyoin ( talk) 06:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: If a neutral article is needed, create Cheorwon County (historical). Cheolwon is just a misspelling. Sawol ( talk) 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate and rename articles to Cheorwon County, North Korea, Cheorwon County, South Korea. Redirect all the spelling variants to the disambiguation. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

It is definite that WP:Hatnote distinguishes between Chorwon County, North Korea and Cheorwon County, South Korea. These two Romanizations of Korean is different from each other. Disambiguation is no use. User:Sugyoin want to create the historical place name. The current place names are more common than the historical place name. Sawol ( talk) 00:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Sawol, if RR (Cheorwon) is primary topic for South Korea, and MR (Ch'ŏrwŏn, Chorwon) is primary topic for North Korea, then let's continue using that. (historical) article can be created, but then the TWODABS hatnotes have to change, and be serviced with Chorwon (disambiguation) AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I found the disambiguation page Chorwon (disambiguation). Sawol ( talk) 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but I'm not opposed to disambiguation. The status quo presumes the South Korean county is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and if that's true, there's no problem. -- BDD ( talk) 19:18, 5 August 2019 (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 / retarget. As below, minus the problem of currency. -- BDD ( talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• AoTeAroa → New Zealand  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. This capitalisation ("AoTeAroa") is never used. (Nothing links to this redirect, and there is already a page for " Aotearoa" (the usual capitalisation for the Maori-language name for New Zealand).) Ross Finlayson ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not necessary. Typing the camel case version into the search bar will bring up the standard version, so there's no need. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Aotearoa. I don't readily see that any of the ten reasons for deleting a redirect would apply. Nurg ( talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Aotearoa per Nurg, and also as this is old enough that it is likely a mis-tagged {{ R from CamelCase}}, and those are normally kept for historical reasons. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Notes: This dates from December 2002, almost a year after CamelCase was deprecated. There are no internal links to it in the mainspace, and the vast majority if not all of the links that do exist are related to this discussion. Per Small SEO Tools the only external link I could find was this. I'll leave the decision of whether to keep this up to the community in light of this info. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 July 2019 (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, defaulting to retarget to Elections in Luxembourg#Chamber of Deputies, since keeping as is would be nonsensical and pleases no one. -- BDD ( talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Next Luxembourg general election → 2018 Luxembourg general election  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. Out of date. No article for the next (2023 presumably) election exists yet. User38453838 ( talk) 23:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I think it's a bit a waste of effort to always recreate the redirect and nominate it again for deletion, depending on whether an article for an upcoming election exists. Sounds like an endless loop applicable to any election. Maybe redirect it to e.g. Elections in Luxembourg as is done for several other such redirects? SPQRobin ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Elections in Luxembourg#Chamber of Deputies where I have added a sourced mention of the date of the next election. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per Thryduulf. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 July 2019 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Useless PANDORA error. Compare 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and many more. — the Man in Question (in question) 09:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I usually don't object to deleting redirects with trailing punctuation, but this one continues to get regular use, averaging 99 pageviews per month. Deleting it would be a disservice to visitors. - Eureka Lott 14:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  I would argue that its continued use derives solely from its existence, and that without it all of these searches would search Wikipedia directly without the searchers having any trouble at all finding what they were looking for. I imagine if " Wikipedia," were made again, it too would receive high traffic. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think we can tell if the traffic is mainly from internal or external links. There's a good chance that many of the pageviews come from other sites, and deleting the redirect would break those links. - Eureka Lott 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm. pretty. sure. people. don't. put. periods. after. individual. words. Also per WP:PANDORA as nom mentioned. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Zxcvbnm. Usage does not necessarily indicate usefulness. PC78 ( talk) 10:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per EurakaLott. Usage of a redirect that has a single plausible target cannot, by definition, indicate anything other than usefulness. We cannot know whether people would still find the content they are looking for if this did not exist, so deletion is potentially harmful, while keeping it harms nothing (claims of harm coming from other redirects are not evidence, let alone evidence of this redirect causing harm). Thryduulf ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, harmless, and adding a period at the end of a URL is a pretty likely typo. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Compare the deletions § Daisy Christodoulou., § Fly., § Ancestral Thames., § Myxomatosis., § Flag of the District of Columbia., § War of the Magi., § Final Fantasy 3., § Bob-ombs., § Organisms., § National Maritime Day., § List of retailers' cooperatives., § Same sex marriage is legalized in all 50 US states., § List of cities in Senegal., § Dehydrated., etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ The Man in Question: I've struck your bold !vote as this duplicates your unambiguous nomination statement. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as harmless and unambiguous. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, harmless is a good term, and not broken. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Generally the only reason to delete a redirect like this is implausibility, and implausible redirects don't get 99 uses per month. Nyttend ( talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (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) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sheikh Zubeir → William Shakespeare  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Really? — the Man in Question (in question) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• There is a theory that Shakespeare was actually an Arab called Sheik Zubair/Zubayr/Zubeir. It's fringe even by Shakespearean authorship question standards. Could be retargetted to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates#WXYZ where the Zubair theory is mentioned. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for that enlightenment. Ugh. There are other Sheikh Zubeirs though, such as this one, who seem more notable (consider WP:SURPRISE). Before anyone says DAB (there is nothing to DAB to), I really think it should just be deleted to allow the search engine to do its work. The redirect has no pageviews, and the name is given as Sheik Zubayr in the article you mentioned. But I won't be too fussy if its retargeted. — the Man in Question (in question) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  On further investigation, no other spelling of Sheik Zubayr appears to exist as a redirect to anywhere, and there are no redirects for the three other "candidates" who don't themselves have articles. So perhaps there isn't that much point keeping the redirect (an impression reinforced by the fact that there were only 11 views in 2017, 21 views in 2018, and until yesterday only 2 views this year...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This kind of thing is just POV pushing from the adherents of that particular fringe-of-the-fringe theory. If for some reason it is kept it should be retargeted to either the list mentioned in the previous discussion or to the overview article for that topic ( Shakespeare authorship question). But I see essentially no reason to keep this whatever it's pointing to (and my field here is Shakespeare). -- Xover ( talk) 08:16, 26 July 2019 (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) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Ezra (2016 film) → Ezra (2017 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Did not release in 2016. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. PC78 ( talk) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (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 and no consensus, respectively. -- BDD ( talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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

• DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA → Sri Lanka  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Россия already exist, I don't see any need for an allcaps version. WP:PANDORA seems relevant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You know, my redirects are correct. Do you even know about this template: Template:R from capitalisation and if RUSSIA and SRI LANKA redirects exist due to all caps, why are you reporting MINE? Barracuda41 ( talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

And besides, these redirects were made over a month ago. HA! Barracuda41 ( talk) 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Russia. There are places where all-caps are more easily found than first-capitalised-only, e.g. postage stamps. This doesn't matter with Sri Lanka, since we expect readers to be familiar with decapitalising SRI LANKA, but we should provide more leeway with other alphabets. Nyttend ( talk) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep РОССИЯ' per Nyttend. We cannot expect English readers to know (or be able to easily input) the lowercase forms of non-Latin alphabets. If someone copies and pastes this into the search bar they should be taken directly to the article they are looking for. Anecdotally, I also see a lot more all-caps usage of Cyrillic for Soviet/Russian contexts than I do for almost any other topic. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thryduulf, maybe you know this already, but another issue is that Cyrillic has fewer distinct-looking capital/miniscule letter pairs than Latin. For example, B and K and H look different from b and k and h, but in Cyrillic the miniscule forms of В and К and Н are в and к and н. Nyttend ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Nyttend: I sort of did know that but hadn't made the connection to appearance of increased uppercase usage and lack of awareness that something is in all caps. That is another reason to keep this. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep' DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA as that is correct and harmless but less useful. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the Sri Lanka one. It's not something that would normally be written in all caps, so there's no basis for having a redirect. PC78 ( talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (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. Target and redirect have both been deleted because they were created by a blocked user's sock. Nyttend ( talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rutiodon priscus → Compsosaurus  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no indication that this is an alternative name for the subject. Note that Rutiodon appears is closely enough related to Compsosaurus to be mentioned in a navigation template, but Rutiodon priscus is not mentioned at that article either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 18 July 2019 (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. Creator requested deletion. ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Saira Khan (Pakistan actress) → Saira Khan (Pakistani actress)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

mistake — Bukhari  (Talk!) 14:07, 18 July 2019 (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 Roman. -- BDD ( talk) 14:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Romans → Ancient Rome  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

It's a 2001 redirect Paging Graham87, could you please import nost:Romans? that first redirected to Roman.

I typed it in expecting to get Demography of the Roman Empire based off Roman people, but I instead got Ancient Rome. What should the primary topic be here? – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 02:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ MJL: Done re the import; sorry for the delay. Graham 87 12:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't this have a disambiguation page like New Yorkers? A page that says: 1) Romans are the inhabitants of Rome; or 2) the citizens of the Roman Empire; or 3) etc. Barjimoa ( talk) 08:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Barjimoa: Tbh, that was what I was thinking because Epistle to the Romans but I guess that is covered in Roman. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Roman which covers other uses (such as Epistle to the Romans, for example). PC78 ( talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Roman as an R from plural. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Nominator comment. I just learned that Romans (disambiguation) targets to Roman. That being the case, I wouldn't mind speedy closing this. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Roman which is a comprehensive and appropriate disambiguation page - Amillar ( talk) 02:34, 19 July 2019 (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 Internal Security Act. -- BDD ( talk) 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Internal Security act → McCarran Internal Security Act  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This should be a disambiguation page - there are numerous articles about Internal Security acts in various countries. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Make into disambiguation page per nom. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• We already have a disambiguation page. Retarget to Internal Security Act and tag as a {{ r from miscapitalization}} and {{ r from ambiguous term}}. - Eureka Lott 13:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Eureka Lott. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (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.