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 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.
Keep as a result of a page move: K4. This is likely to get a lot of views in coming days from old links and there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in deleting this. — J947(user | cont | ess), at 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Deleteorredirect – the current target is not appropriate (as per XOR'easter), unhelpful and unlikely (as per CoffeeWithMarkets). Note: there may be some merit in redirecting both this andInverse kelvintoSI derived unit, where it is listed as reciprocal kelvin. —Quondum17:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I concur fully with XOR'easter: only Inverse kelvin has merit in being redirected.
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.
Not mentioned at the target, I wasn't able to find any mention of Franchise Group by poking around American Freight's website. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per the nominator. No reader would miss the "r" when hearing it pronounced, let alone spell it with another T at the beginning of a word. R and T are next to each other on the keyboard, but I don't think that is enough to justify the existence of this. Glades12 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "R" key is next to the "T" key on the predominant English-langauge keyboard layout, QWERTY, so it would seem to be a plausible typo. No opinion on keeping this or not. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:R3 - It is not a likely misspelling or misnomer. I see the remark it might be an accidental missed key on a QWERTY keyboard, but so would four others of trump, tfump, tfump, or teump. But no need to provide for miskeys. Just not feasible to provide 5 alternatives at each letter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf - it is a WP stated reason for deletion and one that also allows an admin to just delete it. "Speedy" seems to mean how fast the deletion can go, not on how long it took for the page to be spotted. See the deletion discussion above for "Bobama" is tagging R3, and that redirect is from 2010. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett:WP:R3 explicitly says "recently created" not "recently spotted". 3 months is not "recently created" let alone 7 months or 10 years! It has already been correctly pointed out in the Bobama discussion that it is not eligible for R3 speedy deletion so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up here - possibly you might not have understood Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion fully? Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf - Thanks, but look -- the implausible typo did not cease to be implausible typo. I've not actually filed at speedy delete, so that limit is n/a. But unless you think the badness somehow expires and it has become good on day X, or that it just was not deleted at the time so that I somehow am not allowed to point out 'implausible typo' ... just let it go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Violating a policy is not the way to change it; direct discussion is. There is also a reason for R3's "recently created" restriction: deleting older implausible redirects has the potential to break links to them. I don't see that as likely in this case, but it might be elsewhere. Glades12 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All parts of a speedy deletion criterion need to be met for it to apply. Implausible typos are a reason for deletion regardless of the age of redirect, but only when they are recently created are they are reason for speedy deletion. Glades12 points out the principal reason for the recently created restriction. While that doesn't apply here the rules of speedy deletion criteria require that every page that could be speedily deleted under a given criterion should be speedily deleted, and that would not be the case if that restriction was not there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a very plausible and reasonable single letter typo, and it's completely and utterly harmless. Plus, at the risk of falling deeply into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is getting far more usage, and is barely any less plausible, than "Seaborgeum", which was unanimously kept. (Though, in fairness, considering my track record at RFD, if I vote "Keep", that's probably a very good sign it should be deleted...) Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Weak keep - I'm not so sure about this one. I lean, though, to thinking that somebody typing in 'Googer' for 'Googler' might be making a plausible phonetic mistake since the 'l' sound in 'Googler' isn't that emphasized. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Googlers exists now, but it's just a redirect to Google. It's not clear whether people's conditional votes expected it to be a redirect or an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk21:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Possibly surprising search term, as it doesn't specify whether it refers to the primary, the party organization, etc. I would suggest deletion, and note that it has received essentially no use since its creation. signed, Rosguilltalk19:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I actually can't figure out what language this is supposed to be, but given the lack of mention at the target, the language almost certainly does not have specific relevance to nightclubs/discotheques and thus I would suggest deletion per WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguilltalk19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In most languages of Eastern Europe the word for a nightclub is one or another local form of discotheque, which will normally look – or sound – like diskoteka. I don't see it as a RLOTE in a particular language, but as a plausible misspelling for speakers of any of those languages when attempting to go for the English discotheque (which follows an uncommon spelling pattern, so is much more likely to be misspelt than other words). A complicating factor is the existence of Discoteca, which goes to a completely different place and which probably could do with some attention. – Uanfala (talk)20:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Discoteca is an example of the kind of problems that can crop up from this kind of foreign language redirect. Someone searching for Diskoteka on enWiki is much more likely to be looking for a specific song, album, band or festival (of which several are attested in internal search results), rather than an article about nightclubs in general. signed, Rosguilltalk21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Given the presence of other subjects by the name of Mariotta or Mariota, I think that deleting this redirect and relying on internal search results is best. Marcus Mariota does appear to be the primary target for the correct spelling of this name, so I'm not including Mariota in the discussion at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk19:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HiRosguill. Which other subjects are you referring to specifically? I'm having difficulty understanding if the problem you're presenting is entirely theoretical or actually exists today. This redirect is a sibling to Marcus Mariotta, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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 for Weezer and Doctor Strange, delete the rest. I think that we'd probably end up keeping the two that I'm closing as no consensus if the discussion was relisted, but don't see a reason to delay closure given that no consensus has the same practical outcome as keep. signed, Rosguilltalk22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weezer's Untitled 6th Album and Untitled Doctor Strange sequel, but delete the rest. The nomination statement for these redirects is not entirely incorrect. The two I'm stating to keep intended subjects either don't have a title yet or it never had a title. The subject of Weezer (Red Album) never had an official title, so the redirect for that article is acceptable. And notice how Untitled Doctor Strange sequel targets a section: That's because there is both no article and no title for the subject yet. For the other ones: Bow Wow's Untitled Seventh Studio album and Bow Wow's untitled seventh studio album are ambiguous since the phrase could, in theory, refer to New Jack City II since Bow Wow did a collaboration album before New Jack City II called Face Off (Bow Wow and Omarion album), which would chronologically be the 6th Bow Wow album and making New Jack City II the 7th (even though the nominated redirect seems to refer to an unreleased album that was planned to be released in 2010 [after New Jack City II]). The "Untitled The Eternals film" redirects most likely refer to The Eternals (film), this validating that the film now has a title. And for Gautham Menon Untitled Project, per the information in the redirect's edit history, it could refer to either Yennai ArindhaalorAchcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada, both of which have titles, leaving the redirect inaccurate (when pointing to either article) and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Her name is "Jennifer" not "Jenniffer", and she is known only for being the first person outside China to receive a particular experimental vaccine against COVID-19. Link. That doesn't give her the same place in medical history as, for example, Louis WashkanskyorLouise Brown - or even the first person in China to get that shot. Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not mentioned at the target. A Scholar search turns up two results about "Fokker-Planck current density", but unless it's mentioned at the target it's not terribly useful. Delete unless a justification or sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk19:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as for the others that have been nominated in the preceding days. It not a named unit that is used for serious physics in the real world, so WP should not invent it for its similarity to others. —Quondum21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This sequel now has a title, not sure why we should still have this title redirect to Part II. I'm thinking it should maybe be deleted (or whatever else works best) at least until there's a third Quiet Place movie announced. Regards, SONIC67818:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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 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 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 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.
I've created this redirect some time ago, but since then the product has been removed from the list. Unless there are any arguments against, I would say delete. I've actually also redirected some other list entries there, but the unsourced list appears to be OR, so maybe it should be removed completely with the redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
@EurekaLott: However, the article does not mention the character be called “Don” anywhere. I'd suggest making this page the disambig and redirect the Don variant to this title, as “Donald” is the more common variant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the disambiguation page is beyond the scope of RFD. If you wanted to rename the page, you should have started a WP:RM discussion. - Eureka Lott16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect currently targets a disambiguation page where both people on the target page have the name of "Donald Turnbull". If it's also the name of a Robotboy character, then just add them to the disambiguation page if it is notable enough. If not, then I don't see why the redirect should be retargeted or deleted. Utopes(talk / cont)16:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are thousands of redirects like this in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms (which I keep adding to). It doesn't matter if the redirect is a longer or shorter version of every entry on the {{hndis}} page. It is not for us to decide how readers might be searching, just to help them easily find what they're looking for. In this case, both people on the hndis page have the given name "Donald" even if they both go by "Don", and might be searched for by their full given name. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete unless sources can be provided for the former section. If that were restored, this redirect would still be useful; otherwise, keeping this does not make sense per my comments above. ComplexRational (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all. Note that some of these (including the two of which I was notified) are merely resulting redirects from moving pages at these titles to their correct titles. I would suggest alerting the editors who actually originally made the pages at the wrong titles. BD2412T15:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I now discover that in the intervening 12 years things have been moved around so that there is no link from Bradford (name) to the dab page at William Bradford - only an entry for one particular gent of that name! Aaaargh. Will fix. PamD15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Although "(disambiguation page)" is not the one suggested by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for the title of a disambiguation page, it is fine and harmless, and does not meet any of the 10 reasons for deleting a redirect page. And all the redirects nominated above are either the result of page move or reasonably old. Deletion of them is harmful because "if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here")" (see Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons). So they do not need to, and should not, be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DPL bot reports each and every link to DAB pages as errors except those through (disambiguation) qualifiers precisely as INTDAB errors, and so it should. Read the documentation of that guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert:IfDPL bot reports redirect pages to a disambiguation page as errors, does it mean that those redirect pages should be deleted? Of course not. The documentation of the guideline WP:INTDAB states that links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors, but those in redirect pages are, among others, exceptions (see its current version). So DPL bot should not report redirect pages as errors. If it does, it needs to be fixed. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DPL bot should report a link to, not the link in, Donald Turnbull as an INTDAB error because Donald Turnbull is a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page (Don Turnbull). The link in a redirect page to a disambiguation page is not an INTDAB error; a link to a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page is. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: I know that a link from mainspace toKazakh (disambiguation page) (a redirect page to disambiguation page Kazakh) will show up as an INTDAB error. What I am talking about is the distinction between "the link in" and "a link to" a redirect page (without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier) to a disambiguation page. The link in that redirect page should not be an INTDAB error, while a link to that redirect page is. In other words, we can create a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page, but should not add a link to that redirect page in an independent article (for example, Kazakh (disambiguation page) can be a redirect page to Kazakh, but an independent article should not have any link to Kazakh (disambiguation page)). So the redirect pages nominated here should be kept. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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 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.
Chracters, charectors, charecters, charactors, charaters, and charcters
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.
misspelled disambig qualifiers. DidnT check the histories this time, as I think the general consensus has always been delete in such cases the last weeks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Comment - The "pursuit of happiness" as a philosophical notion appears to deserve its own broad conceptual article rather than being made into a redirect to someplace else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoThe Pursuit of Happiness. To make note, this redirect was turned into a stub on April 4th but reverted back to a redirect. I don't feel strongly about whether this title is a redirect or a full-fledged article, so I'll leave that to somebody who is inclined to make it so. Still, "The Pursuit of Happiness" is a better target than the current target, so I will !vote to retarget for now. Utopes(talk / cont)16:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
SpongeBob doesn't have a connection to the Polish language, since it isn't a Polish TV show (this is the English translation of Kto widział ślimaka?, the episode's Polish title), and this title has had only 37 pageviews in its lifetime. I don't see why it should still be lying around. Regards, SONIC67805:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This article only existed for 2 minutes in 2007 with some un-encyclopedic content. Princess Elise already exists as a redirect to the same target (which I'd consider useful), so I'm inclined to delete this one. – numbermaniac04:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does it have the wrong punctuation (although I can see people forgetting to press the space bar, the correct version of such redirects will show up in the search bar in most cases), but the disambiguation also seems unnecessary. Regards, SONIC67805:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Although the Bulgarian language uses a form of the Cyrillic alphabet, I'm not sure someone would search using a Cyrillic О in the word "of." Also, this redirect seems to get very few page views compared to its target ever since it was moved to its current title several years ago. Regards, SONIC67802:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mixed-alphabet redirects like this are pure clutter. No-one will type them in, but only use them when selecting between two visually-identical options in the searchbox. Narky Blert (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not sure why "if" needs to be repeated twice here, especially since the lyrics don't seem to have two consecutive instances of "if" anywhere. If if that is the case then, delete if if justification can't be provided. Regards, SONIC67800:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it an even weaker rationale, really. People do sometimes do things like "the the", etc., when typing fast, but if they're creating links to thing, we can reasonably expect them to check that they're actually linking to something other than a 404 error. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For almost a year the article was at this title, any external links would have had to go to this title. Ther is no common-sense or policy-based reason to delete this redirect, as it is absolutely harmless. — J947(user | cont | ess), at 22:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context
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.
Delete - Not only does no such list exist, but no such list really should exist on Wikipedia given the questionable worth of it in the first place... I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oh, I read it as "list of countries and cities". I'm going to have to go with delete then, I don't think there's a target that's relevant enough as I think the suggested retarget is too broad and opaque. --Tavix(talk)03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY. Yes, a retarget to List of administrative divisions by country would be an improvement, but I really struggle to imagine the hypothetical reader who's typing this into a search bar and what they're actually looking for. This just is not a useful redirect, counties and cities are different entities that aren't dealt with in the same way. ~ mazcatalk22:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#Carzy
Comment: From this link @Diogo Ribeiro: had created the article with the accident but I don't know how he put it in there. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]