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 term is too broad for a redirect, and too general for disambiguation page. However, if this disambiguates to TV and movie titles, per the last comment, it can be attempted. Jay (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• US border battle → 2014 American immigration crisis  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete or disambiguate There have been many border battles involving the U.S., several of them actual battles, instead of metaphorical ones. This redirect is misleading as it is a subtopic of that article, the political battle inside Washington DC -- 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - These battles happen every year. GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence this particular year's immigration issues earned this title over any other year. The article it presently redirects to doesn't mention this as an alternative name, and a quick google search shows the phrase "US border battle" is indiscriminately used for various immigration disputes between 2006 to 2021. -- Euryalus ( talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not just every year, but every century. A "border battle" is how the US got the entire American southwest, one border battle at a time. — Maile ( talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete far too broad for a logical redirect to that or any article. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but disambiguate. First of all, I was unaware that redirects could be deleted for being misleading! I thought they were only deleted if they were blatant vandalism. But as far as misleading redirects go in general, the typical thing to do is to disambiguate them across the articles we already have, not to delete them. To me, this sounds like something should point to an actual battle, but I agree it could be a common search term coming from various modern news reports, so it definitely should be disambiguated. Jane ( talk) 07:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom: there have been actual battles fought at and near the United States' borders. Nick-D ( talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per XY. Ravenswing 15:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a hopelessly ambiguous description, too ambiguous and general for a disambiguation page to make sense. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as ambiguous at best -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Is this referring to the Mexican-American War? Or the Pancho Villa Expedition? Or the political wrangling related to Trump's border wall? Or various other political items? Too unclear, and not likely enough of a search term to disambiguate. Hog Farm _Talk 21:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can't think of a single battle that would fit the redirect. TheRollBoss001 ( talk) 23:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Strange that no one can think of anything to link it to. A quick google search pulls up lots of TV titles and movie titles, but maybe my google search is skewed to works of art. Jane ( talk) 16:35, 21 November 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. Minor meme with no description indicating any significance. Jay (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Xnopyt → Tom Scott (entertainer)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This appears to be a nonce word coined by the target, but is not mentioned there and does not appear to have any major significance. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Anyone who is familiar with the 'xnopyt' meme will be familiar with Tom Scott. ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I am familiar with the existence of xnopyt, but without any mention on the article, or sources to make it's placement in the article work, it doesn't deserve a redirect or an article. OcelotCreeper2 ( talk) 23:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Disintegrate. Minor meme, not mentioned in the Tom Scott article and not a useful search term. the wub "?!" 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as obscure meme at best. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:59, 16 November 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. As there was no opposition for deletion. Jay (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Jihn → League of Legends  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Jhin (League of Legends). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I was thinking of retargetting it as a misspelling but it can point to John as well as Jinn. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In addition to Lenticel's comments, it is also a Korean name. Most prominent is Kim Jihn-eui (who publishes under the name Jihn E. Kim) but he is unlikely to be the only one. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:07, 16 November 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 no consensus. 1234qwer1234qwer4 checked each entry individually and found all of them mentioned at the target. Although the nominator meant to propose all redirects for deletion, they later clarified that some can definitely be deleted, such as Primary/replica (technology), Controller/agent (technology), and Leader/follower (technology). These may be relisted for better consensus. Jay (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Primary/replica (technology) → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary-replica → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary/replica → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary-replica architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master slave architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master-slave architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/slave architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/slave technology → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Controller/agent → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary/Secondary → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary/secondary architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/Replica → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/replica architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Source/replica → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Source/replica architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/standby → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/Minion → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Provider/Consumer → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/Puppet → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Controller/Peripheral → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Initiator/Follower → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master versus main → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/main → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master vs main → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Source/mix → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Main-Parent-Server → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Worker-Child-Helper → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Master/Satellite → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Controller/agent architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Controller/agent (technology) → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Primary/standby → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Main/secondary → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Leader/follower → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Leader/follower architecture → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Leader/follower (technology) → Primary/replica architecture  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

All nominated redirects are unused and were recently created by Mechachleopteryx, who considers the term Master/slave (technology) offensive. I don’t think Wikipedia is the right venue for proposing new terms nor gathering statistics about lookup frequencies. ‑‑  K ( 🗪 |  ✍) 10:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget any that are listed to the list at Master/slave (technology)#Terminology concerns, as valid results of a search for those evidently-in-use terms. Delete the rest per nom: Wikipedia is not a repository of made up terminology, regardless of merit. Ivanvector's squirrel ( ^trees/ _nuts) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  That’s a reasonable compromise. Actually all terms, all nominated redirects were taken from the section you mentioned. And, if I understand correctly, WP: Notability does not apply to redirects, right? “ Redirects are cheap.” I’m not sure though whether it really makes sense to create/keep redirects for various writing styles (hyphen, forward slash, space, you name it). At any rate I’d delete the subject domain “… (technology)” redirects, unless “…” is a disambiguation page (which isn’t the case here). Also, I must correct myself: Mechachleopteryx does not find M/S offensive. ‑‑  K ( 🗪 |  ✍) 13:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which ones (if any) should be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete anything that isn't referened with proper 3rd party RSes. Particularly all the uses that have other topics on Wikipedia that use similar terminology. "Provider/Consumer" particularly si egregiously bad. It looks like Producer-Consumer from economics, or the marriage trope of breadwinner and housespouse; "Primary/Secondary" is excessively biased, there are soooooooooo many uses. "Leader/follower" is stupid, exactly why do we have leadership articles, that's not a technology topic. Source/Replica is horrible, whatever are art counterfeiters to do without sources and replicas? -- 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 03:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Originally I meant to propose all redirects for deletion, because I myself have created redirects so far only if necessary, e.g. for an established alternative name. All alternative names are possible replacements, but seem, as of yet, pretty specific to their domain. Maybe Primary/replica should be kept/retargeted, because there seem to be multiple groups adopting this term, confer the wikipage.
  At any rate, delete Primary/replica (technology), Controller/agent (technology), and Leader/follower (technology), because Primary/replica, Controller/agent, and Leader/follower are not disambiguation pages nor pages with {{ For}} hat notes. The domain specification “… (technology)” does not make sense here.
  ‑‑  K ( 🗪 |  ✍) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing October 30 log page; the nominator's opinion is not quite clear to me (and {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is usually not grounds for deletion). I note that after checking them individually, all of these are mentioned at the target; however, Main/secondary is not listed as a combination, and Master vs main together with two variations is a different kind of redirect, consisting of a term and its replacement rather than a pair of replacement terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:08, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina → Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia used to be titled Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina, but after a RfC it was determined Northern Bukovina shouldn't be included in the title. Eastern Galicia and Volhynia were occupied in 1939 by the USSR, while Northern Bukovina was occupied by the same country in 1940 along with Bessarabia and the Hertsa region (see Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina), so they were two separate events, and it doesn't make sense to include only one of the three regions that were annexed in the 1940 occupation into an article about the 1939 occupation. This was the rationale for the page move and this is my rationale for requesting deletion of this redirect. Super Ψ Dro 09:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:58, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Soviet annexation of territories inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians → Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect. Eastern Galicia and Volyhnia weren't 100% Ukrainian when they were annexed, nor were these the only territories now belonging to Ukraine that the USSR annexed (and they aren't 100% ethnic Ukrainian either). I don't really see much use to this redirect. It has gotten 0 views in the last 30 days by the way. Super Ψ Dro 09:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: both this nomination and the one above are former titles of the article. It has been renamed many times since it was created in 2008, from Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939-1940 to Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939–1940 to Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939–40 to Accession of the Western Ukraine and Western Belarus to the USSR to Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939–40 to Soviet occupation of Western Ukrainian Lands to Soviet annexation of the western Ukrainian territories to Soviet annexation of territories inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians to Soviet Annexation of Western Ukraine to Soviet annexation of ethnic Ukrainian territories (1939) to Soviet annexation of ethnic Ukrainian territories (1939) to Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia and Northern Bukovina to Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia. - Eureka Lott 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:58, 14 November 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 sent to AfD. The discussion at hand is primarily about the notability or lack thereof of a potential article at this title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Mladost Stadium (Lučani) → FK Mladost Lučani  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirection to the football club seems to be the best outcome here. An editor is removing the redirect to create an unsourced stub. As requested by said user, bringing here to obtain consensus. Polyamorph ( talk) 10:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep the article First, I do not want to be accused of OTHERSTUFF and NOTINHERETED, but come on, this is practically the only redirect in similar cases. In 2021–22 Serbian SuperLiga all the stadiums have their own articles (some no better than this one). "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." It is also the same if we look at other leagues, according to UEFA coefficient Serbian league is 12th and not only all the leagues ahead of it have all stadiums covered, but also practically all the stadiums in leagues ranked from 12th to 30th (and probably more, but I stopped checking at 30) have stadium articles. Out of more than 450 top European football stadiums (many of the articles shoreter than this one, many unsourced) I found only one more example of a redirect. I find it nothing short of systemic bias against the East to single out this specific Serbian stadium, while other 450+ are fine. Second, the stadium is clearly notable, important is the existence of the sources, not the actual state of the article. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 22:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I assure you there was absolutely no "systemic bias against the East" and you should strike that accusation. Polyamorph ( talk) 06:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I possibly should have taken this to AfD instead of RfD, but the redirect was created in January 26, 2020‎ after merge/redirect, which is a perfectly acceptable for any longstanding unreferenced stub. Polyamorph ( talk) 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep the redirect: The best way to avoid being accused of making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NOTINHERITED argument is not to make one. The best way to prove that a subject is "clearly notable" is to provide sources which meet the GNG's requirements. There's been no attempt to do the latter, and arguments that we're somehow being mean to the "East" by turning a shabby sub-stub into a redirect are bizarre. Ravenswing 13:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It is not my fault that you do not see the bigger picture. So is it only a coincidence that out of 450+ articles such things always happen to the Eastern clubs? And I am not saying that the bias is conscious and intentional, but that it is the factual outcome. And the sources are already there, have you even checked the article? Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

If you think those "sources" -- which are either primary or lack ANY coverage, never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires -- meet the requirements, you really need to educate yourself better on WP:GNG. Beyond that, if you believe that the only articles on Wikipedia that get deleted are ones associated with Serbian soccer clubs ... then I don't think there's any way I can respond that would penetrate. Ravenswing 23:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

In this case they are. Other hundreds of articles from the same category are just fine with the same kind of sources. Here one of the sources is a book. Have you even searched for other sources? Here, just from the top of the search: https://www.rts.rs/page/sport/ci/story/31/fudbal/2007166/stadion-mladosti-u-lucanima-zasijace-protiv-zvezde.html http://www.zurnal.rs/fudbal/srpski-klubovi-u-evropi/49307/stadion-u-lucanima-dobija-evropsko-ruho-evo-sta-su-trazili-iz-uefa https://www.telegraf.rs/sport/2035944-alarmantno-voda-potpuno-progutala-stadion-superligasa-srbije-foto https://sportske.net/vest/domaci-fudbal/zasijalo-u-lucanima-234667 But it is pointless, I know that even with 1000 sources you would still claim this top league stadium is not notable. And you know, the best way to avoid being accused of SYSTEMICBIAS is not to create one. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, let's see. Your first source is a casual mention of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Your second source mentions the stadium in a single sentence. Your third source mentions it in three sentences (and only in connection with floods in the area that forced the cancellation of weekend games). Your final source is about the soccer team, and mentions the stadium only in that new floodlights were installed. Yes, if that's the best you can do, it's pointless, and you are wasting our time. But I really should address your whining that This Stadium Is Being Singled Out! There are 51 articles in the "Football venues in Serbia" category -- where you get "hundreds" I do not know -- and I'll spend the rest of my morning going through them and redirecting or filing for deletion where appropriate. Ravenswing 16:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

All sources ARE about the stadium. And you know very well what I meant with 450 stadiums. At least do not lie. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

No, I do not know what you mean, and you are FAR too free with uncivil accusations. Beyond that, it strikes me that your user name is identical to the stadium and club here; do you have a conflict of interest to declare? Ravenswing 13:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

LOL, so you are forbidden to write about ravens or wings? If you would understand the language you would know the name has nothing to do with Mladost Lučani and is a pun. Ludost means Craziness. https://bs.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludost I have absolutely no conflict of interest, so maybe you should stop accusing other people of something that is not true. And I meant stadiums in professional top tier European leagues, not Serbian stadiums. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 13:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

While I doubt you have a professional conflict of interest, I do not believe for one moment that your username Ludost Mlačani is unrelated to the football team Mladost Lučani. You have just substituted the first few letters in each word. Polyamorph ( talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The connection of my username to FK Mladost Lučani is exactly the same as yours to Polymorphism, meaning the only "relation" is linguistic. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever, no professional or any other and my username is according to WP:U. I do not really care what you believe. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, curiously enough, I have never made any edits or taken any public stances on Wikipedia concerning ravens OR wings. Neither has Polyamorph made any edits to Polymorphism articles. But I will take you at face value that you don't care what others think. Ravenswing 15:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Well...my username does indeed relate to the amorphous form of polymorphism. A polyamorph is an amorphous polymorph. And I do edit glass articles. Their claim their username is unrelated to the football club is obviously false, but I don't consider it a COI. People edit subjects they're interested in. Polyamorph ( talk) 16:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opening up from the limited participation this has seen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Restore the article and take to AFD, which is the proper venue for discussion on this. Giant Snowman 19:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Polyamorph ( talk) 22:10, 15 November 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. Incorrect and inaccurate formula. Jay (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• C6H2(No2)3Ch → TNT  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

TNT does not contain nobelium nor does an element abbreviated by "Ch" exist, but even with corrected capitalisation this appears to be missing two hydrogen atoms. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 00:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as incorrect chemical formula. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Correct formula is C6H2(NO2)3CH3. It's not a plausible capitalization error, because anyone with enough knowledge to be searching chemical formulas would know that capitalization is very important in the field of chemistry; you wouldn't want to mix up 'No' (Nobellium) with 'NO'(nitric oxide). To boot, the 2 missing hydrogens make this an entirely different chemical, and according to the lack of google results about it, it may not even exist. ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 14:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  NO2 would be nitrogen dioxide, but the point is clear. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Forgive me, chemistry wasn't my strong suit in school. ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per everyone above. An implausible capitalization error (and the incorrect formula, nobeliumless, missing hydrogen, and with a nonexistent element) indeed. Regards, SONIC 678 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nonsensical chemical formula. Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm pretty sure this one came from the Stanford Archives. The goal of the project is to check if collegiate quiz bowl answers- likely notable subjects- are represented on Wikipedia in any form. TNT is clearly represented here, so there's no need for a redirect from an incorrect formula created by a bot's attempt to format a pdf. Forgive my apparent lack of chemistry knowledge. Sesame honey tart 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as inaccurate formula-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:56, 16 November 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.