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.
Redirect target is an article on a different street that happens to intersect Park Street, but the article doesn't mention that fact at all (nor should it). Redirecting to the Cambridge article wouldn't be helpful. Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: even a complete lack of a mention isn't a reason to delete a redirect. It isn't misleading, spam, abusive, highly unlikely, or any of the other standard reasons to get rid. Now that the redirect target mentions it, it is a nailed-on keep. Lithopsian (talk) 21:42, 21 February 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.
ATTINGAL PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM - SREE MAHA GANAPATHY TEMPLE
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 made the redirect, have been involved in "flow arts" since before 'flow' was a common term. In those days, 'Dexterity Play' was a common term for playing with toys that require or build dexterity, and the articles in the category are articles involving 'toys' and 'props' used for dexterity play AKA flow arts. If we had an article on flow arts, then we would not need a redirect, we would refer to the category in the article. right now it may be nearly impossible to have an NPOV article on flow arts. Try it and see. User:Pedant (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
would be awesome if someone made sure the list has all the toys/props/tools/gear/arts included in the category from which the redirect was made. Otherwise I think this one is solved/done and ready to archive the discussion. Thanks to anyone involved! User:Pedant (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The above discussion seems worth considering further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:10, 21 February 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.
This redirect page mixes part of a name and part of a title, of which there are numerous variants. This page name used to be an alternate title of the article itself, and challenged [citation required]. I cannot find a scholarly citation that states his name thus, so I deleted the errant name. Robert La Salle for example, was another person, a prominent resident of New Orleans in the 1800's but not notable enough to have a wiki article. Is that the same name as Robert de La Salle? I'd say it is, and that it's just another wayward misspelling. The page name is not the name of anyone and shouldn't point, well, anywhere. Sbalfour (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether it is incorrect or not it is used in various sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc) so it's very likely people will use this search term when looking for the Wikipedia article about him. What matters for redirects is that they are useful search terms, not necessarily correct (see Category:Redirects from incorrect names), correcting misconceptions, etc is the job of the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thyrduulf. It doesn't matter if the name is correct or incorrect, readers could be searching for this name, and the primary objective is to point them to the right place. Any confusion can be cleared up in the article. Narky Blert (talk) 09:40, 24 February 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.
Temporary title left over from move. I have several similar cases. Would it be helpful for me to continue listing these singly, together or not at all; or do they qualify for a speedy G6?Certes (talk) 16:56, 21 February 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 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.
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. This has been here for three and a half weeks, and I don't think we've reached a good consensus. The keeps have stronger arguments, although I don't find them to be particularly strong arguments for the current target, just not to delete them. A potential retarget candidate makes a good point (and is perhaps the reason why this is a no consensus keep rather than leaning keep) but has been untouched for over two weeks. We could relist this, but I don't think we're getting anywhere beyond the status quo. ~ Amory(u • t • c)02:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither God, gold, glory (in any order) nor the three G's appear in the target article, which may be confusing for someone looking for specific information about either of these phrases. --Tavix(talk)18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there are competing uses. It's anecdotally ascribed to various sources that early European seafarers sought new oceanic trade routes to Asia and Africa ("gold") at a time when all of the major overland routes were controlled by Muslims ("god"), and of course for their own achievement ("glory"). I'm having trouble finding a reliable source for this but see this (which might be someone's homework). The search for new routes to Asia led Columbus to crash in the west Indies, which has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Perhaps European colonization of the Americas would be a better target) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (at least for those that are spelled out); a Google Books search brings up multiple relevant results: [5][6][7][8]. It seems a common enough phrase summing up the motivations for imperialism. Huon (talk) 14:25, 5 February 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. So, this is delete, but only because all the non-delete ones were struck a week ago. I initially was going to relist this, despite seeing consensus, and got so far as to write the following:
This is probably overly-pedantic, and I apologize for that, but the items "officially" nominated here have changed a few times over the course of this discussion. While there does appear to be a consensus about what to do (as evidenced by the nominator's strikes)
In the end, there's a consensus here about what to do — had the nominator not struck all the LL titles, my close of that would have resulted in the same outcome as this close — so I felt it improper to relist this in the face of a consensus for action. ~ Amory(u • t • c)02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is not accurate: capitalising Viblandi is indeed correct, but Villamil is not correct: the surname of the engineer is either "Cantero" or "Cantero Villamil", according to the Spanish naming convention.
rElist, it took me a moment to see the concern, so I would like more eyes on this; there is a broad array of relevant wikiprojects that need notifying and someone ought to read MOs;CAPs for the rule on this. cygnis insignis15:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all LI's. Keep all LL's. Not only is there the single Welsh letter, but also, younger users (as happened in one of my classrooms the other day), might mistakenly capitalize both of the LL's in certain names (although in that instance, the child typed in LLoyd Bridges, and they couldn't understand why there was no article on him. Onel5969TT me16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects for this kind of typographical error are unnecessary. When no page is found, the error will be noticed by the user, or the search results will indicate the correct page. --Bsherr (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. STicky FIngers on shift keys do create typos, which is why the LIght Year (Isakov song) redirect was created back in 2012 (before the WP search engine would ignore such a typo). These days such redirects are not needed; however, they are harmless. My instinct says "keep", but not really averse to deletion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep on LL. I don't know much about Welsh, but I know it has an affinity for initial double L, and perhaps it's plausible (at least) to capitalise both of them. It's potentially a different situation from the English names beginning with LI, so we ought to be able to look at them separately. Please withdraw the LLs, and renominate them if you disagree with the keep-the-LLs reasons given above. The concept that no Welsh topics were nominated is incorrect; for example, our knowledge of Llywarch Hen is heavily dependent on the Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd, a Welsh document, and as a sixth-century Brythonic figure, he's closely connected to the Welsh even aside from the language of the earliest sources. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 22 February 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 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Brazil
