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 retarget to List of stars in Ursa Major. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 84 Ursae Majoris → Ursa Major  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see why there should be a redirect from this star to the constellation article. There is nothing on the constellation article's page about this particular star. PopePompus (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of stars in Ursa Major where it is mentioned. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of stars in Ursa Major as per User:SevenSpheres. Also, similar redirects should be retargeted accordingly. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of stars in Ursa Major per SevenSpheres and InterstellarGamer. We don't want to mislead readers to the general article when there's a list available. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Jay 💬 06:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Glearwing → Bembecia scopigera  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The only evidence of this vernacular name being real I have found is this reference in the article. For reasons I have outlined in more detail on the article's talk page, it's likely that this website intended to use "Clearwing" and made a typo. Other than that, I cannot find anything that refers to this species as "Glearwing". This is also not a common typo whatsoever: on a Google search for "Glearwing", I have only found the Wikipedia article, its forks, and a publication where the PDF reader misinterpreted a C as being a G. Randi Moth (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as creator: I created the redirect without checking the validity of the common name which was on the page. Randi Moth's explanation above and at Talk:Bembecia scopigera make sense to me. I wouldn't have created the redirect had I reviewed the source as Randi Moth did. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Creator is also fine with deletion --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Procedural keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TLRCC → Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have no idea what it is supposed to be an abbreviation for. The closest thing is "Tridentine Latin Rite Church", but it does not match this abbreviation.

Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawal: it is probably the abbreviation of "Traditional Latin Rite Catholic Church" which is mentioned in the article. Veverve (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 05:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Wayne, MI) → Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Jay 💬 05:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• King James (person) → LeBron James  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created, and no evidence that the basetball player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With many other persons at the King James dab, the parenthetical (person) does not help disambiguate. Suggest deleting. —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – useless, recently created incomplete disambiguation. Second choice: retarget to King James. The basketball player isn't the primary topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to King James as the most famous "King James" is going to be one of the kings named James, not LeBron. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless fancrufty redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surely any of actual Kings called James are more commonly known as James.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to DAB per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 keep. Jay 💬 15:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Christopher Perrin → Christopher Perrin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect not needed Jjhake (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Redirects resulting from a move of draftspace to mainspace are usually kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyclone and WP:RDRAFT. Just because an article is no longer a draft doesn't mean the redirect can't be useful. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Thanks for letting me know. I thought I had left a mess behind that I couldn't fix. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per CycloneYoris. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to Shenzhen Pingshan railway station. The new target article can be expanded to include information about the metro station. Jay 💬 15:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro) → Line 16 (Shenzhen Metro)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect The Banner talk 11:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Shenzhen Pingshan railway station or Keep. Looks like this station does exist on the Line 16 of the Shenzhen Metro. Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Natq and add information about the Metro station there. The table at the present target links to that article, implying that is where the information about both metro and high speed stations should be located - it can always be easily split in future if editors desire separate articles. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Shenzhen Pingshan railway station and expand the railway station page to include info about the metro station. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 keep. Jay 💬 15:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI → Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Death and state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI → Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is a consensus at Talk:Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI#"State funeral" or not? that this funeral was not a state funeral. Therefore, those redirects are misleading and should be deleted.

I am pinging those who have expressed their opinion @Estar8806, Pbritti, GoodDay, and Ravenpuff:. Veverve (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Harmless and plausible search terms even if they're not precise. Tag as Template:R from incorrect name if you want to. The second one is also the former title of the article, which is another reason to keep, to avoid breaking any incoming external links. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existence of {{R from incorrect name}} shows that being wrong is not a reason to delete a redirect. Being an implausible search term would be, but this is even a quite plausible search term on the grounds that funerals of Popes are almost always state funerals: the fact that second one was the original title of the article supports the plausibility. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Double sharp: funerals of Popes are almost always state funerals: could you provide a source to support this claim? Veverve (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Veverve: Hmm. I admit that I cannot, and that I said it was on the assumption that the funeral of an incumbent state leader would always be a state funeral. So I have struck that. Still, as I said: being wrong is not by itself an argument to delete, only being implausible, and the fact that we are having this discussion indicates that it's a plausible search term. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the above points, that there needed to be a discussion about whether it was or wasn't a state funeral, especially since the answer was not immediately obvious, indicates that these are plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above--Estar8806 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mx. Granger and Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureş) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Pârâul lui Mihai (Cavnic) → Cavnic (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Pârâul lui Mihai (Someş) → Anieș  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Paraul lui Mihai (Mures) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Paraul lui Mihai (Cavnic) → Cavnic (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Paraul lui Mihai (Somes) → Anieș  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureș) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pârâul lui Mihai (Someș) → Anieș  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Pârâul lui Mihai" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. See also the proposed deletion of Pârâul lui Mihai. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found the versions without the diacritics, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 21:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Two of the ones without diacritics should be kept unless the redirects with the proper Romanian s-commas are also deleted: Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureș), Pârâul lui Mihai (Someș).—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 23:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I added these two to the discussion. Markussep ^Talk 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Markussep ^Talk 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:COSTLY. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Four of these had content that said they are tributaries of rivers, and were BLARd by the same editor. Either restore and merge content to their respective river articles, or discuss here on why their content is wrong. The BLAR summaries were no info, not sure this river exists, and redirect, not notable. They may not be rivers, but tributaries, and they may not be notable, but they had references (not English). However, if this tributary name is not real or is made up, the redirects may be deleted. Jay 💬 14:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you check the last versions before I redirected them ([1], [2] and [3]) you see the same two references, Romanian books without any further details (no page number, for instance). "Administrația Națională Apelor Române - Cadastrul Apelor - București" probably refers to this book, but none of the three streams are listed in it. Meanwhile I found out that the streams actually exist, I found them on old hiking maps (in the old spelling "Pîrîul lui Mihai"): the Mureș tributary here (lower left corner, south of Ciumani), the Someș tributary here (in the middle, north of Anieș) and the Cavnic tributary here (lower right corner, west of the town Cavnic). None of them exceed 3 km length, and I don't think they're notable enough even to be mentioned in the articles about the main rivers. There is no mention of either of them on internet apart from Wikipedia and clones, all other pages are about the village Pârău lui Mihai. I probably should have PRODed them then. Markussep ^Talk 17:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the research. Delete all per the above. Jay 💬 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Jay 💬 13:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• High Voltage (australiam album) → High Voltage (1975 album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: badly capitalized and spelling error (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: pointless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even without the capitalization hurting things much here, the misspelling doesn't work here (we already have High Voltage (Australian album) and High Voltage (australian album), the correctly spelled versions). While the M key is right next to the N key on QWERTY keyboards, I'm not sure it's really plausible used in the disambiguator. Besides, its history is just updating the target and fixing double redirects. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to several miscaps and misspellings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague and implausible. MusiBedrock (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The history merge is also done. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• High Voltage (Mundial album) → High Voltage (1976 album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't determine from the history why this exists: "Mundial" is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a poorly executed attempt at naming an article about an album which had a worldwide release, as opposed to an Australia-only version. No reason for this redirect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. MusiBedrock (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - before deletion (and indeed whether kept or otherwise) edits up to 31 Jan 2009 need to be histmerged into High Voltage (1976 album) which created as a result of a copy-paste move, reverting the move to this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 keep the correctly spaced redirect; delete the incorrectly spaced one. There was insufficient discussion of retargetting the first redirect to form a consensus about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• High Voltage (Linkin Park Song) → Linkin Park discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• High Voltage(Linkin Park Song) → Linkin Park discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete the version with with incorrect capitalization, and the the version with incorrect capitalization and missing space (WP:COSTLY). The correct version High Voltage (Linkin Park song) correctly targets Hybrid Theory. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep High Voltage (Linkin Park Song) (and retarget it to Hybrid Theory if it's kept), while it hasn't been getting many pageviews, I'm not sure it's really hurting things much. Delete High Voltage(Linkin Park Song) because of the incorrect spacing, however-the correct version will show up in the search bar. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 21:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the first per Sonic as harmless and unambiguous, and delete the second due to the lack of spacing between the title and disambiguator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This came up as a deletion candidate at the RfD of Wikiwikiwiki. No mention at the target and I could not find external search results except being used as the title (probably for effect) in a couple of writing pieces. The previous discussions said it was a "buzz word" or a well-known historic term, but did not provide any usages, and may have been referring to "Wiki Wiki". If not deletion, this may be retargeted to Wiki Wiki Web as a misnomer. Jay 💬 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the previous consensuses to keep. In February 2022 I wrote This is not nonsensical at all - it is a now (mostly?) historic term with a specific meaning. When terms with a clear use could be confused with something with a similar name that was never known by the name then we just add a hatnote to the target making it easy for anyone using the term to find what they were looking for whether that is the correct name or the misnomer. What we do not do is make it harder for everybody to find the content they are looking for by deleting something. and nothing has changed since then (or indeed since the 2011 discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was never a historic term and never had a specific meaning. I'm just going to copy what I wrote on the other RfD: The previous RfDs on this topic both concluded incorrectly. Despite the claim in the 2011 RfD that "Wiki Wiki Wiki" was a "buzz word" back in the day - it wasn't. I know this because I was there. I joined the community of the original WikiWikiWeb in 2000 and ended up being one of its "stewards" (akin to moderators). Nobody there used the term "WikiWikiWiki", with spaces or without, nor on MeatballWiki, the other major venue for discussion of wiki technology at the time.  — Scott • talk 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your memories are not a reliable source. We have multiple people in multiple discussions saying that this definitely was a term that was in use at the time, and you saying the contrary. You can't both be correct, but for the reasons other people have explained it seems more likely that you are the one that is mistaken, and even if you aren't it's completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They may be wrong too, as suggested in the nomination, and this is an opportunity for them to back up their stories and memories with sources. Jay 💬 05:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They are indeed wrong. As many people have noted throughout history, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None has been forthcoming for this one because there is none.  — Scott • talk 23:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for consistency at this point. (This probably should have been bundled with the RfD for Wikiwikiwiki, but here we are now.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943, for consistency with the previously deleted redirect. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if there's specific content that this refers to we're not currently targeting it, there's no information at the target explaining why the word "wiki" repeated three times is a different use from the word on its own, and the redirect's history suggests it has never had any more specific purpose than this. As it is, this redirect is obfuscating potentially useful search results. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Jay 💬 12:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Senate → List of political action committees  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find good targets within the wiki. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel. The first thing that came to my mind was a Republican Party-controlled U.S. Senate (or another senate controlled by a political party with red as its main color), but I'm not sure that exact event is worthy of an article. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 16:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Captain George Carleton → Daniel Defoe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At the target, there is a mention of a book being possibly written under the pseudonym of "Captain Carleton"; no mention of "Captain George Carleton" at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the name of a memoir "Military Memoirs of Capt. George Carleton" written I think in 1705. This is mentioned in the article. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scope creep: I could not find mention in the article with the title you mentioned. But I see this title in an external search. So George is the first name, hence keep. Jay 💬 11:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It listed as "Captain Carleton's Memoirs of an English Officer" under the "Some contested works attributed to Defoe" section. George Carleton was his full name. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning keep but the outcome could stand to be a little clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WX Piscis Austrini → Piscis Austrinus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I see no reason why this star in particular should redirect to the constellation it is in. Normally, if a star is notable, it will have a separate article. Having a redirect like this is very non-standard. PopePompus (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because a star is not notable does not mean that it should not be a redirect to its constellation. Additionally, it is in Template:Piscis Austrinus, and it may have notability as a variable star. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion and now believe that it should be retargeted to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus where it is mentioned. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus per SevenSpheres --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus per SevenSpheres. ¹⁴¹Pr 09:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).