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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason to waste bandwidth on improper punctuation in this case. Paper LuigiT • C 22:25, 31 January 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.
@MarkZusab:Aluminium and Aluminium phosphide is not the same thing. Do you have evidence that "aluminium poisoning" may actually be referring to aluminium phosphide instead of elemental aluminium? --Tavix(talk) 19:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search for "aluminium poisoning" brings up loads of medical case studies and similar, not all of them accessible or understandable. The first one that I was able to access and understand relates to Aluminium sulphate[1], the second elemental aluminium (I think) [2]. My first impression therefore is that Aluminium phosphide poisoning isn't going to be the primary topic for the phrase, but I'll leave a note at WT:WPMED. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While "poisoning" is not specifically discussed, the section at Aluminium#Biology discusses the effect of aluminium on humans, as well as treatment for when too much is ingested. --Tavix(talk) 19:28, 29 January 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 DeleteThryduulf (talk) 10:39, 7 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. --Tavix(talk) 20:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useless redirect. There have been only 9 pageviews and people can find what they are look for when they type "Nobel Peace". This makes this redirect useless and it doesn't even appear in the search bar. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That, and for some reason, this mispelling makes me think that if I made this mispelling, I'm looking for the "Nobel Peace Pixie", which doesn't exist ... or does it? Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible typo (the nom's "they can find it when they type "Nobel Peace" argument is not a reason to delete though as that only applies to a subset of readers). My first thought was that this might be a prize for the most peaceful Grand Prix. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 03:50, 30 January 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 is useless. People can find what they are looking for by typing "Cameroo". The "m" at the end doesn't make this redirect any useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible typo, but not per the nominator's second sentence - that's only true for some ways people search/browse Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been persuaded by the comments below that this is a plausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a likely typo, especially to people who aren't familiar with the name of the country. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: That is not a likely typo as the country name as you type "Cameroo". This makes it obvious to the reader what they are looking for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pkbwcgs: only if you are using the internal search engine with javascript available and enabled or (some?) mobile apps. The are other ways to access Wikipedia's content in ways that do not provide search completion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Virtually everyone in the anglophone world uses the QWERTY keyboard, in which M and N are adjacent. (They may also be adjacent on the French AZERTY keyboard, but if you're French, you'll type "Camerou_".) That alone makes it a plausible error, compounded by the fact that one might mishear the country name and not know how it's properly spelled. And nominator's second comment is incorrect, as Cameroo is not a working redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 3 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.
These are very strange looking brackets. I copied and pages these brackets into Google and there are no hits online. It is unlikely that someone will search a rarely used brackets as the common brackets are "()". The redirect for those is at (). The 15 pageviews suggests that this isn't a worthy redirect. I don't know how to type these brackets myself but this is clearly a complicated unicode character. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The characters in the page title are Unicode's 65288 (hex FF08) "FULLWIDTH LEFT PARENTHESIS" and 65289 (FF09) "FULLWIDTH RIGHT PARENTHESIS". Certes (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Thanks for the information. Well, it is unlikely that someone will type those characters into the search box. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very easily input when using east-Asian input methods (for example), or they can copied and pasted. The lack of internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: It is unlikely that someone will copy and paste the character as not many people will be familiar with this type of character and they are not easy to input as they are not on the keyboard. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not being familiar with a character is a reason why people are more likely to copy and paste into Wikipedia to find out about it. Also, as already noted, they are readily available on the keyboard when using various input methods. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the target contains information on fullwidth parentheses. --Tavix(talk) 18:35, 29 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely mispelling. The second letter is a capital "i". Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pollutes the searchbox when "Aiu" is entered. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I likely created this redirect without realizing the capital i (but it's been 13 years (!) so who knows?) -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 03:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only because it's a common word, and people aren't likely to make that mistake. On some other pages, e.g. Kim Jong II, it helps to have a redirect with "I" in place of a lowercase "l". Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 3 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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 7 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. --Tavix(talk) 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROD was declined by redirecting. But the subject is not discussed in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 29 January 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. This WP:REDLINKs the title if anyone is able to scrounge up the sources to create an article, while also revealing search results so his other credits will appear when he is searched for. --Tavix(talk) 20:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This man has more than just the one credit. I want to write an article about him, but there isn't much to be found. Still, this redirect target seems inappropriate. Paper LuigiT • C 12:48, 29 January 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. --Tavix(talk) 20:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any specific policy against using『™』in a page title. WP:TITLETM doesn't prohibit it, MOS:TM says『Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations』but doesn't say not to use it in page titles. I thought the article title was considered part of the article text, but can't find anywhere that says that. I still say Delete this because it can't be used in running text, it is unlikely to be typed, has no incoming links, and has had no views in the last 30 days. (It also breaks the Page Views tool when clicked from "Page Information" - but not from here.) 94.21.204.175 (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a related mass-nomination from four days ago going on here.UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a coincidence. I guess it's too late to combine it into that mass-nomination. I did some WP:BEFORE but intitle:™ search brings up 0 results, otherwise I would have noted it there. (I've just tried with a regex search, which does work, but times out.) 94.21.204.175 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 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.
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands and Flanders)[edit]
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 don't think this redirect has relevance on the English Wikipedia for this particular target...unless I'm missing something. Paper LuigiT • C 12:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comment: This redirect's disambiguator made me think of Ned Flanders. Possible influence for the character's name? Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 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.
It's both – both unnecessary and incorrect disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 1 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. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nickelodeon's All That? I can't find this official title anywhere. Might as well have redirects for Nickelodeon's Drake & Josh, Nickelodeon's CatDog, and Nickelodeon's SpongeBob SquarePants too. Paper LuigiT • C 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has existed since 2008, gets used and is a perfectly logical way of ensuring you arrive at the article you are looking for. The other redirects you mention would also be fine for the same reasons (assuming they're correct, I haven't looked). Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nickelodeon is also misspelled. --Tavix(talk) 14:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was so hasty with this that I didn't even notice the misspelling! Another reason to delete this. Paper LuigiT • C 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was considering to vote "keep" until the mispelling was pointed out. Yep, get it outta here. Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 1 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 no consensus. --Tavix(talk) 14:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and redirects from plausible other capitalisations (such as this) are a Good Thing. Readers are not required to know our capitalisation conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself should follow capitalization guidelines, which is why I moved it, leaving this redirect. There is no such requirement for redirects. Remember redirects are cheap; they shouldn't be deleted unless they're actively incorrect or harmful, which this is not. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there is reason to distinguish if the miscapitalization is in the disambiguator. No incoming links on Wikipedia. I agree with Steel1943. --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, search suggestions only exist for some ways of finding Wikipedia content. The existence of a similar redirect is therefore not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How could it be harmful? The title already capitalises two words that normally aren't capitalised in titles; one might expect "Episode" to be capitalised as well. And there's no possible alternate meaning with which this could get confused. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 3 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. --Tavix(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was never the name of the pilot episode. Edit history is garbage. Paper LuigiT • C 11:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this were "(pilot episode)" or "(Pilot Episode)" or something like that, then I'd say to probably keep it, but as it is I'm uncertain given the wide variety of meanings "pilot" can have. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Combination of a (1) misspelling by way of separating the compound word, (2) incorrect name for the pilot episode, (3) ambiguous and therefore unlikely disambiguator, and (4) miscapitalized disambiguator. This makes for an undesirable redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 00:48, 30 January 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. --Tavix(talk) 20:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect - readers are not required to know our naming conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unlikely-to-be-mistaken-for disambiguation. --Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 30 January 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) 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible redirect. Disambiguation contains "episodes" when "episode" would suffice. Paper LuigiT • C 11:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoAt the Movies (Rugrats). Given that this was, according to the lead of the article, a mutli-part episode the search term is not implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one episode, not multiple episodes. When I first saw this, I thought it was the name for the series of Rugrats movies. --Tavix(talk) 14:11, 30 January 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improper redirect written in an unusual format (series with episode name in parenthesis). Delete as implausible redirect. Paper LuigiT • C 11:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unlikely-to-be-mistaken-for format for the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsherr (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I imagine I created this to deal with a redlink. There are no articles for the individual episodes and no incoming links to the redirect, so a placeholding redirect doesn't seem useful. Josh Parris 00:48, 1 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.
THEORY OF SOCIAL RESPONSE: COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS[edit]
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 deleted per G7byAthaenara. --Tavix(talk) 14:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase does not seem like a likely search phrase. Has no incomming links, is not mentioned in the article and does not appear in google search results (at least not in the first two pages, not even when adding "arrow". Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's definitly not a common phrase likely to be searched, and it seems more like a creation of personal opinion.Babspage (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Db-G7 since user:Babspage created the redirect and agrees that it should be deleted. Perhaps Babs can explain why he or she created it in the first place, and now that it is up for deletion has created the equally useless redirect Burp Burp Dunkelsnack, and previously created Iron Man 19 and Poor People: The Musical?Meters (talk) 05:00, 30 January 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.
Delete as implausible. "Mommy Fearest" already exists and points to the same target. The disambiguation is totally unnecessary. Paper LuigiT • C 10:24, 29 January 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.
Delete as implausible. "Geshundfight" already exists and points to the same target. The disambiguation is entirely unnecessary. EDIT: And it seems I'm actually the one who created this redirect... Paper LuigiT • C 10:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Thryduulf. I say "weak keep" due to the use of the word "The"; it's not inaccurate, but there also doesn't seem to be a precedence for using it either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 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 result of the discussion was soft delete. --Tavix(talk) 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible. "Mommy Fearest" already redirects to the episode list. The title with ellipses has never been the official episode title. Paper LuigiT • C 10:19, 29 January 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 result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 20:04, 7 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.
Keep. Not a neologism, certainly, since used by 19th-century historians: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and so on. Hits from the Google Books search, but not -wikipedia. No need to be deleting this. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though I notice many of those use lower case (as in, not a WP:PROPERNAME). Google Books indicates the term has been used loosely for various conflicts, most not the Revolutionary Wars (a few more for the Napoleonic Wars, actually). Ribbet32 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{redirect|Great French War}} can be used in a hatnote for some further clarification, somewhere. It is forgivable, surely, to ignore the Peace of Amiens and see there as being a single conflict. In any case the term has a certain traditional standing. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charles Matthews. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charles Matthews. If I saw "Great French war" in print, I'd be inclined to think it a typographical error for "Great French War". No prejudice to changing the target if desired. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 3 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 soft delete. --Tavix(talk) 20:45, 7 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 speedy deleted per WP:G6. --Tavix(talk) 19:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and implausible redirect B dash (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this redirect is currently a {{R with history}} that needs to be retained per WP:CCC. I would recommend that the nominator check such redirects in the future (per WP:BEFORE) as I ended up moving the edit history in their previous nomination to a different title so that the redirect was safe to delete. At the present time, that is not the case with this one.Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G6 now that Tavix has moved the edit history elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#The dufflebag
