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.
Eh, either that, or restore the content at the section which these redirects currently point. For example, when I see this phrase, I think of an enemy named "Crawmerax" in the Borderlands DLC The Secret Armory of General Knoxx (though it's currently not mentioned there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 2 September 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.
IRIN is ambiguous with 4 entries at disambiguation page Irin, 2 of which are capitalised. It is possible but difficult to prove that The New Humanitarian is the primary topic for "IRIN" but retargeting to the disambiguation page may be better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support a disambiguation page, on the grounds that IRIN is a longstanding abbreviation for the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy since 1979, and was used extensively to refer to the The New Humanitarian from 1995 to 2019. Pahlevun (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the dab page Irin was just created today, changing a long standing redirect from Irin -> Watcher (angel). Is the Aramaic term the primary topic for irin? I am neutral on the IRIN to Irin dab page redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: Yes, created by me. With 4 uses of various capitalisations of "irin" it seems to me very unlikely that Watcher is the primary topic, which is why I created a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:28, 3 September 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. If there were any future untitled projects that could fit these descriptions, I suspect we'd quickly get consensus (if these titles weren't just BOLDly usurped). --BDD (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like in the mainspace, once films/albums/other created works get a title, any redirect with "Untitled" is misleading and should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since they are all redirects which target pages in the "Draft:" namespace, the "Draft:" namespace is set up to not be indexed by third party search engines (should not show up in their search results), the "Draft:" namespace is not intended to be used as a search mechanism for "live" pages, and these redirects could potentially prevent duplicate articles and/or drafts being created at these titles since 1) they redirect to the most applicable draft and 2) it gives editors a warning box if they try to create articles with title matches of pages in the "Draft:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alll Redirects are costly and not what the draft namespace is for. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Steel1943. Redirects within draft space are probably the very opposite of costly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @UnitedStatesian:That's a link to this discussion, but in general terms my answer would depend on the timing of the move, whether there was any merging of drafts, whether the creator was aware of the new title and whether it was plausible the title would be useful for a draft about a different topic in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:26, 2 September 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 result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thanks to Uanfala for drafting it! --BDD (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tied may be a possible typo for tide, but is probably more likely an intentional search term for the past tense of tie. The current redirect is WP:ASTONISHing, and should be avoided. Suggest either re-targeting to Tie, or deleting. Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget to Tie (draw). "Tied" is not a reasonable search term for any of the uses listed on the extensive disambiguation page except, possibly, Tie (draw) so if it is retargetted anywhere it should be there. However I disagree that the current target is more or less astonishing than any other typo or homonym, especially as we regularly redirect those but don't regularly redirect other verb forms. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping is definitely out: misspellings can't take precedence over correct forms. The other target noted by Thryduulf is definitely plausible, but there are other targets as well, and I can't see a primary topic even if I squint. Disambiguating looks viable, but it will be tricky to do with the NOTDIC and PTM issues. Articles like Tied house, Tied cottage, Tied aid should probably be included: they look like partial title matches, but in each of those three cases you can discern a specific meaning of "tied" that's not exclusive to these particular phrases: you can also talk for example of a pub, a contract, or a loan being tied. – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. This redirect is too ambiguous. There are a lot of titles containing "Tied". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seventyfiveyears: Simply having a lot of titles containing the word is not enough for disambiguation, there would have to multiple titles that are actually fully known as "Tied". See WP:PTM for more details. Which articles did you want to include in your proposed disambiguation? --Tavix(talk) 15:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoTie (draw) which looks to be the primary topic to me. I agree with Uanfala that you may be able to stretch together a disambiguation if you squint (egTie (music): you can say that two notes are tied, but I can't imagine someone searching for that using "Tied"). I think a hatnote to Tie (disambiguation) would take care of that. --Tavix(talk) 15:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, I don't think Tie (draw) is any more eligible as a target than other articles, like Tied aid. If anything, it's an everyday word in this case and so probably a lot less likely to be sought by readers of an encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is ambiguous and any redirect to any target may cause confusion (especially the current target). Let Search do its job uninhibited. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoTie dab page, add it to the Wiktionary link on that page, and add a couple of "See also" links to "look from" and "in title" for "Tied". Too many uses - tied cottage (home linked to job), tied house (pub committed to brewery), knots, etc as well as sports. If anyone feels strongly about the typo for "tide", add that as another "see also". PamD 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a dab page below the redirect: if the term is to be disambiguated at all, then it definitely should be at its own title. Redirecting to Tie is out of the question because the overlap between the two terms is infinitesimal: only three, maximum four, of the 36 entries at Tie are relevant for "tied", and many of the meanings of "tied" are not relevant for "tie". I don't have very strong objections to deletion, but a separate page is probably the most helpful solution; retargeting anywhere else (except maybe Wiktionary) will be as good as useless for our readers. – Uanfala (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as set out by Uanfala: thanks for your work. Perhaps add a gloss "... is the past tense of the verb to tie"? We may need to WP:IAR slightly for this set of PTMs, but it looks the solution which will be the most helpful to the most readers. I've removed a duplicate entry and added the "in title" and "look from" searches. PamD 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per multiple editors above, seems to be the best solution for this. A draft has already been created below the redirect anyway. CycloneYoristalk! 23:23, 9 September 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 result of the discussion was disambiguate. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a disambiguation page until 2015 when User:ZJOEY redirected the page to Suvarnabhumi Airport. While Suvarnabhumi inherited the IATA code BKK from Don Mueang International Airport in 2006, it has never been officially referred to as "Bangkok International Airport", which was Don Mueang Airport's official name up until then. (Before being officially named, Suvarnabhumi was referred to as "New Bangkok International Airport".) Both are currently international airports serving Bangkok. I suggest the disambiguation page be restored. Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoBangkok#Airports which summarizes nicely the situation in context and has prominent links to both airports. --Tavix(talk) 22:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment adding Bangkok Airport, which should be consistent. (Not adding all the BKK/bkk redirects.) A separate dab page has the advantage that links to it show up in WP:DPL. Or maybe it's a disadvantage, since "Bangkok International Airport" was actually a correct historical name of one of the airports in question and just a WP:PTM for the other. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Suvarnabhumi Airport is the primary topic for both terms (being the principal airport for Bangkok), and there is an adequate explanatory hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab. The handful of incoming wikilinks shows usages for both airports (and one usage that's indeterminate to me), and the older airport is a valid target despite the newer one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore DAB. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs tend to collect bad links, and JHJ's research has shown that this one indeed does. Narky Blert (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per nom. While neither of Bangkok's two operating international airports is officially named "Bangkok [International] Airport", readers will be looking for something at that title, and it's possible (though not very likely) that old articles, histories, and mirrors host ambiguous links originally intended for the old official title for Don Mueang. Disambiguation is the best way to handle these, and hopefully prevent creation of new ambiguous links. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 8 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there is content about Giant enemy crab on enwiki, I'm not convinced "giant enemy crap" is a plausible search term for that meme. Hog FarmBacon 15:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; implausible. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 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 in target article, and is old unencyclopedic content from 2004. FWIW, an article on this subject was deleted on the Japanese wikipedia in 2013 [1]. Hog FarmBacon 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as G8. Another case of the double-redirect bots messing things up. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an obscure or novel synonym of the target, which is one of the WP:RFD#DELETE reasons for deletion. A Google search, at least on my device, is mostly bringing up various BBQ and hot sauces claiming to be "for real men", as well as a bizarre internet challenge involving soy sauce and testicles. Hog FarmBacon 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not Urban Dictionary. Also, it's kinda ambiguous given the nom's info about the Google search. Regards, SONIC678 00:16, 4 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Seventyfiveyears(talk) 14:55, 2 September 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 in target article. Orland A. Wolfram was delinked in Donald Justin Wolfram with edit summary "removed invalid link", and there is no clear reason why these redirects should exist. PamD 22:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Seventyfiveyears(talk) 14:49, 2 September 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. I would be fine with the proposed retarget but that's still pretty ambiguous, and this is an old one-off shortcut that nobody has used in 12 years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 8 September 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.
Since articles like spaceflight used this wording to refer to any orbital maneuvering systems in general, this redirect should be retargeted to orbital maneuver and hatnote the target. Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 13:51, 2 September 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. I see strong arguments on both sides, and little reason to think a relisting would change things. I suspect Jimbo Wales himself expressing an opinion would tip the scales, but he hasn't been active in a bit. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why this page redirects to that user page. Also, I feel like if anyone made an account using this username, they would not expect this redirect. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator I naturally think the redirect has value to prevent disruption and confusion. Impersonation should be blocked. User:Jimbo Wales is a significant enough editor that his nickname should be reserved for him alone across all Wikimedia/Wikipedia platforms. (BTW, the talk page was already a redirect at the time I made this one.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Unified login, since there's a user who's registered this name on trwiki. If they were ever to edit here, User:Jimbo would be there userpage on enwiki. I don't see why this redirect should stand in the way of the single-user login. Heck, this could even be eligible for WP:U2, right? Hog FarmBacon 15:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible as long as there is a dispute and discussion about it. Don't complicate things. Let this run its course first. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens if the trwiki editor with this username ever edits enwiki and wants a userpage? Hog FarmBacon 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I'd assume that one of two things would happen, either 1) the user would be assigned the username User:Jimbo~enwiki (see User:Power~enwiki for reference), or 2) no other user would be able to create this name since WP:SUL would prevent them from doing so. (I don't know if the latter is the case, but I'd assume there have been updates to the WP:SUL process such as this since SUL was enacted a few years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark it doppelgänger account per above comments. The Turk user will notice that their enwiki uses pages are created to avoid impersonality with Mr. Jimbo Wales. --Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soumya-8974, "User:Jimbo Wales" is not the only "User:Jimbo" in enwiki. User:Jimbo is not even similar to "Jimbo Wales". Other users also have the named "Jimbo" (i.e. User:Jimbo Herndan, User:Jimbo online, etc). Please read this. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per 1234qwer1234qwer4's findings. Since the user name is used for a global account unrelated to the target, this redirect should be deleted per the purpose of WP:SUL. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to "strong" after my findings in my response to Hog Farm. Looks like this user name is reserved specifically for the editor who has edited on "trwiki" since the WP:SUL for "Jimbo" was assigned to them. I'd even go to the extent to say this redirect should be deleted per WP:G6 since its existence has the potential to cause technical issues that conflict with WP:SUL. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the SUL report. The user itself haven't edited since 2011, but the SUL results indicate an attachment to German Wikipedia in 2020. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know, at this point, I'm just going to ask the editor themselves for input in this since they are still active and probably know more about this first hand than me: Power~enwiki, is there anything you may know regarding your own experiences with the enacting of WP:SUL which may help with this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how SUL is relevant here. All the renames were done in 2015 (including that of a blocked account at enwiki from Jimbo to Jimbo~enwiki) and nobody's username is going to change now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the overwhelming primary topic, given that Jimbo~enwiki is blocked and the Turkish Jimbo hasn't edited since 2011. Jimbo Wales is more likely than any other user to be searched by those who know who he is but may not know the username. --Tavix(talk) 19:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I understand this stance, but I'd like to present an alternative. So, for the page 沙盒, deleted via an RfD, I created Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒 which appears on the page when anyone attempts to create it. Would having such a edit notice at the top of the page, possibly stating something like "User:Jimbo does not exist. You may have meant User:Jimbo Wales, the account for Wikipedia's founder" suffice? That way, readers will still be directed to where they may possibly intend to go, while at the same time leaving this title free since it belongs to an account authenticated via SUL that has nothing to do with Jimbo Wales? (Even though yes, the odds of them using their account are rather low since they have both never edited on the English Wikipedia and haven't edited at all for about 9 years?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an excellent solution. The point is that people need to be directed to their likely target. -- Valjean (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussion about the years-last-edited it's a clear 'keep'. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Jimbo Wales himself owns this account it should not redirect to his userpage 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Double redirect (from a page move) for a PPV that isn't yet happening (target currently redirects to WWE Hell in a Cell). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the miscapitalisation and missing space rather than it being a double redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xezbeth. Two errors is too many. Narky Blert (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the incorrect spacing between the punctuation, also we don't need double redirects like this. Regards, SONIC678 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible redirect. --◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:20, 2 September 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.
Speedy retarget as proposed. I just went to boldly do it and see that it's up for discussion, so I'll just leave the comment here. As noted in the previous discussion, this redirect targets a section that no longer exists, and the restored article is a better target anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 8 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned anywhere on enwiki, it's a rather funny one-panel gag in the comic strip, but definitely out of scope to mention anywhere. Hog FarmBacon 02:43, 2 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improper use of the draft: namespace, it was created as a redirect from the draft space to the article space. Hog FarmBacon 02:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Also, this acronym is highly ambiguous: the intended meaning here is "storm water management pond", but there's also "surface water management plan", "site waste management plan", Smith and Wesson M&P (the former target of SWMP), and a bunch of other stuff not discussed in Wikipedia. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 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 target article has a very large number of incoming redirects for sundry in-game entities, but these ones here are probably among the most obscure. There's no content about them anywhere on Wikipedia, and I can't imagine there ever being added any. And because of the presence of either generic or short words in some of these names, the redirect are likely to interfere with searches for other topics. There's nothing useful in the histories of those redirects: Battle of Ionith was created in 2006 as a short article about the event, but was then promptly redirected; similar was the beginning of Sigil Stone in 2007. The rest have remained redirects since their creation: Gaiden Shinji in 2007, Thras in 2013, Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary, Snow Elves and Reman Cyrodiil in 2014. – Uanfala (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Snow Elves and delete the rest, as per previous. These seem extremely obscure, and other less obscure redirects could probably also stand to be deleted. 2A00:23C7:6C88:B101:6885:48BA:A08F:6255 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 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 result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name "Jackson Pollock" is mentioned in this newspaper: [2] —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in the target article, leaving readers not finding the information they may be looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 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 September 10#Neo FIlms
