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. Deryck C. 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stair Falls → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. Is a geographic feature in the Moria area in Middle-earth, but is not referenced at that article. The original article content was redirected to a page that has since been redirected, so the fact that the content is no longer extant should present no licensing issues with deletion. We could possibly retarget to a page about literally falling down stairs, but I couldn't find a page dedicated to that subject. Hog Farm (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No use as it is, not mentioned in the target. A Google search for 'stair falls' turned up numerous publications about falling downstairs, a 2-line non-WP:RS article in Tolkien Gateway, and this redirect. There are waterfalls called Stairway Falls in North Carolina (mentioned in Rainbow Falls (Horsepasture River) and elsewhere) and in Queensland (mentioned in Lamington National Park), but (a) the name is different and (b) we have no article on either.

Delete or retarget to Falling (accident), which has one mention of falling down stairs. I would be happy with either outcome. Narky Blert (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: If the latter, could that be a good use of the Rcat "from other capitalization"? --Doug Mehus T·C 07:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Yes. I use {{R from other capitalisation}} all the time while DABfixing. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert Thanks, just wanted to check my interpretation. DABfixing, do you mean linking to (disambiguation) redirects instead of to the actual DAB page, or something else? At any rate, fixing DAB page errors and creating DAB pages would be something I'd like to focus my editing on. Should I start with the WikiProject Disambiguation, or which reports do you use? --Doug Mehus T·C 07:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: I've replied on your Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer delete because of the capitalization and because of the negligible usage. No prejudice against re-creation and retargeting, though. Doug Mehus T·C 22:56, 26 January 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. The rough consensus here is that we recognise Superb Owl is a notable pun on Super Bowl that is already discussed in the Super Bowl article, but "Suberb Owl" pushes it over the edge of implausibility. Deryck C. 16:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suberb Owl → Super Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo. You would have to make several typos to get from this term to "Super Bowl" Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Without commenting on the merit of the redirect, the term "Superb Owl" is not intended to be a plausible typo away from "Super Bowl". It's instead a term used to mock the NFL's attempts to prevent unauthorized usage of their "Super Bowl" trademark. That is to say, people (typically online) say "Superb Owl" instead of "Super Bowl" in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Useight (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight: Can you find a WP:RS or two for that? If you can, it could be added to the article. Narky Blert (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best I've found is this, Wiktionary, and probably something here, but I don't have a New York Times account to read the article. Useight (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not only is it a very plausible typo, it's a famous typo. WilyD 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — the third letter is a B. Superb Owl should be kept, and we're not discussing that here. HotdogPi 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HotdogPi mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible type per HotdogPi. Superb Owl is another matter altogether (removes glasses, huffs on and polishes them). Narky Blert (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps redirect to Super Bowl#Super Bowl trademark which talks about the phrase. The concept is notable enough that it would qualify for its own article but one that's small enough that it seems reasonable that it's part of a section of the main Super Bowl article.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} --Marc Kupper|talk 05:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed from keep to delete as on saving I realized this is about Suberb with a "b" in the middle and not "Superb." --Marc Kupper|talk 05:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, was Retarget to Superb Owl, per WilyD and HotdogPi, for different parts of their rationals, with the rcat from misspelling as it's an entirely plausible typo or misspelling. Could also, possibly, add {{r from meme}} given the noted misspelling WilyD identified. Failing that, I would support, in turn, either:

Disambiguate to Superb Owl and Super Bowl because of its world-famous status as an infamous common typo, per WilyD's referenced link. I see no reason for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redirect to Superb Owl is not possible, it would be a WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT. A bot would redirect it to Super Bowl in no time at all. Narky Blert (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Doh! And I even installed the green redirects script from Wikipedia:User scripts/List yesterday. Darn. Have to amend my !vote then. Doug Mehus T·C 17:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. "Superb Owl" is a reasonably well-known rebracketing joke which is mentioned at the target; "Suberb Owl" is just nonsense. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No objection to Suber Bowl, though. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:47, 28 January 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, Rosguill ^talk 23:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bev Collins → New Democratic Party candidates in the 2008 Canadian federal election#Cariboo—Prince George  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirect from an unelected political candidate to a list of her party's political candidates, which features no new information about her beyond a repetition of her name. The additional problem here is that a different Canadian political party also once had a candidate with the same name, but I can't find any reliable sourcing that verifies whether they were the same person or not. She's just not a likely enough search term to warrant keeping a redirect whose followers won't actually land on any useful information -- especially not when there might be two different people involved, with no way to determine which one the searcher was looking for. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. In case someone tries to create an article on either person which gets AFD'd for NPOL fail. ミラP 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – DAB unnecessary. Cavalryman (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and concur with Cavalryman here as a DAB page is completely unnecessary. Moreover, we don't ordinarily keep redirects for non-notable defeated candidates. See this RfD for Nick Boragina. Doug Mehus T·C 23:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was going to say per Bearcat in the Nick Boragina discussion reference, then I realized Bearcat is this redirect's nom. Consider this also a per nom. Doug Mehus T·C 23:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NN politician. Nothing to disambiguate.

It looks as if there may be only the one Bev Collins, who stood between 1993 and 2008 without success for National Party of Canada, Canadian Action Party, and New Democratic Party: link, from The Georgia Straight. Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig - two target articles. Notability doesn't apply to redirects, so suggesting we delete per notability is jibberish. Deliberately stranding readers who're looking for what information we do have is completely unjustifiable, unless one enjoys being cruel for its own sake, I guess. WilyD 05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the likelihood that anybody is actually looking for, or expecting, a Wikipedia article about her? Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, I'm open to disambiguating or retargeting, if there were at least two suitable targets in the former and, in the latter, to a suitable target other than a failed election campaign. If we kept redirects for every non-notable failed candidate, I could literally pay the $250 candidate entrance fee, run as an independent, and have a Wikipedia redirect to my (presumably/likely) failed election campaign. Doug Mehus T·C 14:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Search results serve as a better disambiguation page for her than any manually created page. feminist (talk) 03:28, 3 February 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 keep for now, as information about this person was added to the article two weeks ago and so far uncontested. Deryck C. 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mehul Garg → Mensa International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I can see, not mentioned in the target article (necither in the current version, or the version at the time the redirect was created – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Hi there! Mehul Garg is known for his performance in the Mensa test (see for example [6]), but he doesn't seem to me to be notable enough to have an article, hence the redirect. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unless he is mentioned in the target article this serves no purpose. Cavalryman (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

it does now :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a mention of him. I have my reserves about the suitability of content on IQ score records in an article about an organisation, but if your addition survives by the time this RfD is closed, then count me neutral. I won't go as far as "keep", as I'm not a fan of having redirects for people with a bare mention in an article whose topic they have no particularly strong connection to. – Uanfala (talk) 15:41, 21 January 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 retarget to List of dog breeds. Votes for whether the redirect should point to List of dog breeds or American Kennel Club#Recognized breeds were a toss up, so no prejudice against further discussion there. I note, however, that American Kennel Club#Recognized breeds is not a currently existing section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club → American Kennel Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• List of dog breeds recognised by the American Kennel Club → American Kennel Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The list article was merged into the target article in 2018. I propose to delete the redirects and remove the list from the American Kennel Club page. The inclusion of a list on the AKC page is an unnecessary WP:FORK of List of dog breeds which actually specifies whether breeds are recognised by the AKC, further I am confident no one keeps the list on the AKC page up to date.Cavalryman (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deleting the unnecessary redirects. William Harristalk 19:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion These are useful redirects with the first receiving 2000 hits last year and their history necessary for attribution of previous versions of American Kennel Club. If there is a better target, such as List of dog breeds, point the redirect there; no need to delete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC) See below, the first redirect receives over 2000 hits per year[reply]
• Support per Cavalryman's history analysis below; was Keep the first redirect per Wugapodes rationale, though Tavix may want to assess this in a similar fashion to a similar redirect on this log page, and delete the second one. There's no history at the second one and I see no need to keep a Canadian/British spelling of a long name redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wugapodes & Doug Mehus, what from the list’s history is necessary to maintain? Going through previous versions, this list never had a single reference, just some links to the AKC website. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  Because the content still exists at the other page, whether live on the page or in historic versions accessible through the page history, the list of contributors needs to be maintained to comply with the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses. Even if that were not the case, these are still useful redirects with the first having received over 2000 hits last year, accounting for over 1% of the 150,000 page views to AKC. As you say in your nomination, the information those readers are searching for exists at List of dog breeds; rather than deleting useful redirects, consider retargeting them to where the content does exist. You've given no reason to delete the redirects, and I'm convinced doing so would negatively impact our readers' ability to find content given the wide use. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose American Kennel Club#Recognized breeds is a perfect target for List of dog breeds recognised by the American Kennel Club. Even if the list somehow got deleted, a summary of the dog breeds recognized by the club should still be present. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to American_Kennel_Club#Recognized_breeds as suggested by Headbomb; they're useful and there is no reason to delete. J947 ^(c), at 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb & J947, one of the intentions is to remove that list from the AKC page, it is an unnecessary FORK of the List of dog breeds page, further it is un-maintained. If the consensus is to retarget, it should be retargeted to List of dog breeds which has the ability to search by AKC regocnition. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Retarget both to either target (prefer List of dog breeds per Cavalryman that the AKC list is an unnecessary WP:FORK that probably should be boldly redirected). If Cavalryman wants to retarget elsewhere boldly post-close, he has my support. It's questionable whether there's attribution history to preserve that wasn't already in existing articles, but it's a reasonable target. At first I thought that Headbomb was opposing retargeting, but re-reading his and J947's responses, he just opposes deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:16, 26 January 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, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lake Nenuial → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. Is mentioned at Galadriel, but in a context that already assumes the reader knows what this lake is. This redirect does not lead the user to helpful content. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to Galadriel#Second_Age, where we have information on the subject. WilyD 06:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: Yes, we have content there, but is it really content that a user searching for Lake Nenuial would find useful? That mention really only lists the name of the lake and the fact that Galadriel went there once. That content doesn't give the reader any understanding of what Lake Nenuial is. As a comparison, if the only content about Ohio was in the phrase "he went to Ohio", that redirect would not be useful. Redirects should take users to useful content on the subject of the redirect, and that proposed retarget would take the user to a mention in passing that would do basically nothing to inform them on what Lake Nenuial is (or whatever verb you use to refer to fictional content). Hog Farm (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's not a great comparison, because Ohio is a real place where a lot of stuff happens, with its own intrinsic importance. In this case, I would guess that any reader searching for it is looking for it in the context of it's importance in the Lord of the Rings, because its a fictional place there. If we ... I dunno, lived in/on Middle Earth, and were writing an in-universe Wikipedia, it might then make sense to red link it to encourage creation, because it would presumably have a lot of other importance, information, etc (i.e., if Ohio was a redirect to say Halle Berry, just saying she was born there, we should redlink in that case - to encourage creation). But in this case it's a fictional lake whose only importance comes from the fact that she went there. It's comparable to why, say Thain of Glamis redirects to MacBeth, even though the only information there is that MacBeth was the Thaine of Glamis, with no details about what that is - because any reader looking for it is almost certainly looking for that context. Similarly, I can't really imagine many readers are looking for Lake Nenuial for a reason other than to find out how it figures in the Lord of the Rings books, which this reference does explain. WilyD 16:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unlikely to be helpful to readers, likely to confuse or disappoint them. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 4 February 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, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lazy S → List of mathematical symbols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not a known mathematical symbol. The name seems refer to a typographical variant of letter s, but the only mention of it that I have found in Wikipedia is U Lazy S Ranch. This confirms the typographical meaning, but does not provide any information on the shape of the symbol

So there is no plausible target for this redirect, and the best thing to do with it seems to delete it D.Lazard (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be soft redirected to meaning 5 of Wiktionary:lazy. D.Lazard (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or even integral symbol? But my guess is that it is either a spoof or OR. Delete.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Per the term's original wikicontributor more than a dozen years ago, user:Monkeyblue (diff), "The Lazy S (∽) and reversed tilde are glyph variants and are used in Mathematics."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible retarget to Approximation, which is where ∽ redirects and is mentioned (Unicode U+223D); though not called Lazy S. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Narky Blert's suggestion is possible, but I would think there would be other possible targets here. It's just too generic. Doug Mehus T·C 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (changing vote). No suitable target. Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clarifying my !vote, as nominator, as having proposed other (worse) solutions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:25, 3 February 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, Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

PENIS should target Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy and not Penis, per WP:DIFFCAPS. Note that the page views of the article are much greater than those of the redirect. Nb this redirect is currently subject to full protection (which I have also requested to be downgraded). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB is needed because of its popularity and effects on the populace.^[FBDB] See "Peñis" above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no evidence in any of the refs or external links that Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy is ever referred to as PENIS. And no reason anyone is likely to search for penis in all caps (but if anyone does, they should get there anyway, like NOSE). Station1 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that is does say "Due to the suggestive nature of its acronym (PENIS)" so it does appear to pass WP:DABACRONYM and someone might search for it because of that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That sentence is completely unsourced. I left it in because it has a citation-needed tag at the end of the paragraph, but I suspect it might be something an editor just assumed. As noted, I can't find any reference to that acronym being used anywhere. If you can find a source, I might agree with you. Station1 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB - both Penis and Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy are plausible as the readers' intended destination, and I can't see any reason to think one is far more likely than the other. WilyD 17:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or DAB as I think Penis is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, with an alternative capitalization and one more hatnotes at Penis to unrelated articles including Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy, don't you WilyD? That said, Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy is not the primary topic, so would strongly oppose retargeting there. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, you could be right about the primary topic, but I see no way of knowing WilyD 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB no clear primary topic, we would normally redirect the only ALL CAPS version (such as SMILES/Smiles and MAVENMaven but it seems like this could confuse/surprise too many people so a DAB is best. Either redirect to Penis (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE or create one at the ALL CAPS base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Atsme:@WilyD:@Dmehus:@Crouch, Swale:: unless I've misunderstood, those advocating "Dab" want a disambiguation page at PENIS with 2 entries: Penis, and Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy? Shhheriously? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Yes, it's very plausible. That said, if someone wants to add Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy to Penis (disambiguation), I would weak support retarget-ing this there. Basically, I see no reason for deletion here. Doug Mehus T·C 18:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes that's right, I don't think there's a clear primary topic for the ALL CAPS version so there should be a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Crouch, Swale said it best for why I prefer a second, ALL CAPS dab page here, but I'm not opposed to the alternate option if that's what everyone wants. Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy per WP:DIFFCAPS. The other usage is not capitalized in this manner, but those looking for that usage with a broken caps lock should be able to find it with a hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:43, 25 January 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. Early delete voters did not sufficiently engage with the WP:ATT arguments raised later in the discussion, and thus I feel that we can't close this as delete despite the numerical superiority of delete voters. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club → Canadian Kennel Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The list article was merged into the target article in 2018 following a not particularly memorable discussion, I propose to delete the redirect and remove the list from the Canadian Kennel Club page. The list is an unnecessary FORK of List of dog breeds which actually lists CKC recognised breeds, further I am confident no one keeps the CKC list up to date.Cavalryman (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, no main space articles are linked to the redirect. Cavalryman (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• List of dog breeds recognised by the Canadian Kennel Club → Canadian Kennel Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Adding obvious variant to this nomination. Many thanks Tavix, I will nominate the others separately. Pinging previous contributors Atsme and William Harris. Cavalryman (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nobody is going to do a search on "List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club"; they will go to CKC. William Harristalk 08:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yep, not needed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few other redirects to the target: Canadian Kennel Club breed groups, Canadian Kennel Club Groups, CKC Groups, and List of dog breeds recognised by the Canadian Kennel Club. The last one is an obvious variant, but should the others be added as well? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these variants should also be deleted using the same logic. William Harristalk 07:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting them all, if someone wants them to be properly nominated I am happy to do so. Cavalryman (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete all - thank you for spotting that, Tavix. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Atsme or WilyD, while I don't oppose deletion necessarily, I do see the dog breed images in this list article. Do we need to keep this for WP:ATT? If not, then I concur with the prevailing sentiment here. Doug Mehus T·C 18:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would depend on why and how they were added. Though I see a lot of text was added here [7] and there may be others. So, List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club definitely needs to be kept for attribution reasons. As does Canadian Kennel Club breed groups per here [8]. As far as the images go, if they were just added to both, it wouldn't matter, if they were copied from one to the other, it would, but I'm not seeing where you're seeing that? WilyD 06:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must Keep on List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club and Canadian Kennel Club breed groups, as they were merged into the main article and so their histories need to be kept for the licence and the law. Could be hist-merged, I guess, but that's usually a pointless mess. Otherwise, the search terms do seem to be covered at the article, so I don't really see a reason for deleting them. The nominating statement indicates it might make sense to do so after a possible future merger, but in that case deleting these now would be putting the cart before the possibly nonexistent horse. WilyD 06:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, perhaps I have this around about, I have nominated these with the intention of removing the merged content once they were deleted, should I remove the merged content first (it can and will only ever be sourced to a primary source and it’s inclusion in inconsistent with nearly all other kennel club articles)? Cavalryman (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, you probably can't do either (though there are occasional cases where it's possible). Because the versions in the history are all part of Wikipedia and made available in all the dumps and such, they also need to comply with the licence, so we need to keep a record of all the authors (the -BY- part of CC-BY-SA). If content is added then immediately reverted, you can delete those from the history, then delete the record of the author. It's also technically possible to do a history merger (so, rather than being deleting, both histories swamp over each other - but this usually results in an ungodly mess when anyone tries to read the history and so usually isn't a terribly wise idea, but it can be consistent with the licence. And, of course, just because you're planning to remove the content doesn't mean the content will be removed, it's quite possible the consensus will develop to keep the content (though, that mostly applies to the two redirects without the need to be kept for the licence). But either way I don't see that it makes sense to delete those redirects while the content is in the article - then they're directing readers to the content they're looking for, which exists. WilyD 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WilyD above. Doug Mehus T·C 18:41, 23 January 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• India's anti-Muslim law → Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think that this is a redirect of marginal benefit (very little usage so far) with the potential to be costly due to its recentism. In the meantime, it looks like internal search results will still render Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 as the top result even without the redirect, so I think that there is little harm in deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I found an article in al-Jazeera and other newspapers about "anti-Muslim law", I searched about it and I couldn't find it in Wikipedia until I found its name "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". I then created the redirect so that it can be found.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not explained in any of the Islam in India article, which shows that Islam is a major religion in India. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is mentioned in a section of that article Islam_in_India#Law_and_politics, which mentions it in the context of its original proposal as a bill in 2016. That article is clearly out of date; if updated I think it would be a suitable target for this redirect, since that would address my concerns of being costly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Islam in India#Law and politics. It's a useful redirect and it should probably go somewhere. That section gives an overview of the topic, and while it may be out of date now, it should/will include the desired explanation when complete. Deleting now and hoping it gets recreated when the section is perfect probably won't work out and will be a net negative in the long run. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are any of those other laws considered "anti-Muslim"? I suspect readers are looking for the recent law. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Likely search term, no evidence of other legislation likely to be referred to as such. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD without prejudice to a WP:BOLD redirect to Islam in India#Law and politics or another suitable target or new RfD should the term no longer be a common search term OR should the term become ambiguous or confusing. Granted, the usage stats aren't that high, so I would not object to deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 4 February 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. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would be better as a red link. The only real incoming link is List of Indo-European languages and in that context it refers to the language group, not a particular language. Rather than have that list link the same place twice, it would be better to have a red link — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the term "Geto-Dacian" is most commonly used in a more general sense as referring to the people, region and material culture of the Dacians and the Getae (the two may be the same group). Geto-Dacians and Geto-Dacian culture both redirect to Dacians. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting to Dacians would probably be better than my suggestion; then just point the link at List of Indo-European languages to something like Geto-Dacian languages. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OP posted here in response to my recent post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Links to DAB pages. Several questions occurred to my mind before posting there, which I do not have the competence to answer; including, is Geto-Dacian an accepted term of art? and, is the article which links to it factually correct? As a DABfixer, I rely heavily on good faith and on competence in both WP and the sources; but it's sometimes difficult to be sure; and sometimes research proves that such reliance is misplaced. I am therefore neutral in this discussion; because it's not just a technical matter within WP, it's a factual question to which I do not know the answer. Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the best option is to redirect it to Dacian since it can refer to many aspects (not just language or the people), as described in that page.Codrin.B (talk) 15:50, 26 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oven Toast Grill → Oven  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Oven-Toast-Grill → Oven  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Added 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC) by Tavix.)

Quite possibly one of the most odd redirects I've ever seen. It is in Category:Redirects of dubious utility, a template category, and the template says that redirects in the category should be raised here. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at target article and unclear exactly what this is supppose to mean. Hog Farm (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - OTG is a very commonly used appliance these days. Soarwakes (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it really is that commonly used, the content needs to be added somewhere. The only mention of "Oven Toast Grill" I can find on Wikipedia is at the dab page for OTB. Hog Farm (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Should Oven-Toast-Grill be added here? Glades12 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; a Google search suggests that Phillips make a range of counter-top mini ovens that they call Oven Toast Grills given their combined functions, but it isn't mentioned in the target. If there's reliable source coverage, then a redlink might encourage article creation - if there isn't, I don't think we should have a redirect at all given the lack of coverage in the target. ~ mazca ^talk 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oven Toast Grill per Soarwakes as a plausible related concept, with one or more added rcats to clarify this redirect's purpose and delete Oven-Toast-Grill as implausible. Doug Mehus T·C 21:09, 24 January 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, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Máhanaxar → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mahanaxar → Middle-earth#Geography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mentioned once (not at the target article) in Wikipedia and the mention is not substantial. Unlikely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the other mention in Valinor § Places in Valinor with The mound of Ezellohar, on which stood the Two Trees, and Máhanaxar, the Ring of Doom, are outside Valmar. I agree at present this would be an unhelpful redirect. Could it be expanded to a sentence or two that define Máhanaxar? BenKuykendall (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to be a non-notable fictional thing with passing mentions of it spread across multiple articles. It would be best to reveal search results in this case. Deryck C. 16:50, 3 February 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Book 4 → Magick (Book 4)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect would confuse our readers, as there are many different books that could reasonably be called "Book 4". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's fine. This is the only book commonly known as Book 4. It is as much a name for the book as its full name. No confusion exists, as the redirect page was created recently and had not been used or created previously. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While Magick, Liber ABA, Book 4 is the most prominent book with "Book 4" in its title, the redirect is still questionable. Any fourth book in a series has probably been called "Book 4" at some point. For example, one can argue that A Feast for Crows is "Book 4" of A Song of Ice and Fire. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A Feast for Crows doesn't even have Book 4 listed as an alternate name. Crowley's Book 4 is, as mentioned, the WP:COMMONNAME of the book. Big difference, both for encyclopedic purposes and topic searches. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as a Google search suggests this is the primary topic, but create a hatnote and/or dab page for other titles containing "book 4" or anything that may reasonably be searched as the 4th book in a series. ComplexRational (talk) 15:56, 26 January 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 retarget to Internet protocol suite. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TCPSTACK → Transmission Control Protocol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned or referenced in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind what happens to the redirect as it is unlikely to be useful, however "stack" occurs plenty of times on the target page, and "TCP stack" occurs four times. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Retarget - TCP stack is more likely to refer to the whole protocol suite, not just TCP itself. So TCP stack and variations should be redirects to TCP/IP protocol suite. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• edited above Rauisuchian (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's no valid reason given to delete ("TCP stack" occurs four times) and WP:CHEAP. I agree that, if kept, this should redirect to Internet protocol suite. ~Kvng (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng: So, you mean "retarget to Internet protocol suite"? Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. If kept, I would do retarget myself. No need to spend any more time on the details here unless someone comes up with a justification for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, just asking since on RFD, "keep" traditionally means "do not change the target of the redirect"... Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 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. Deryck C. 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rocks and minerals → Rock (geology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY issue, considering that Mineral is an article about a different subject. Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This seems to be a common phrase, but I cannot identify a clear target avoiding the XY problem (I'm still open to other suggestions), so search results may be better here. ComplexRational (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. It may be a common phrase, but it's imprecise. (This discussion has had the advantage that it prompted me to create the previously (and surprisingly) missing redirect "Rocks and Gravel".) Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. I can't find a target that talks about the two as a single subject. Hog Farm (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. XY applies squarely here. Glades12 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 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 enact Narky Blert's proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MWCA → Ministry of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's a fair amount of less-than-notable (or at least article-less) subjects that use this initialism that are mentioned here or there on Wikipedia. The one notable subject which uses this initialism is Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana); it's not actually clear that the current target uses it because its English title is longer (presumably a proper initialism would be MWCAS or MWCASS). Thus, I would suggest redirecting to Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom to the only article with a notable mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate since the English website does call the Sri Lanka one by those letters. http://www.childwomenmin.gov.lk/en/home AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Swap Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana) and Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs per WP:PRECISE.
(2) Retarget MWCA to Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs.
(3) Hatnote from Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs to Ministry of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security.

The Sri Lankan agency (working link http://www.childwomenmin.gov.lk/) was only known as MWCA (Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs) 2015-2018, and has had several other names before and since; whereas the Ghanaian agency chose its name in 2001 and has stuck with it. The redirect Ministry of Women and Child Affairs (Sri Lanka) exists; but this looks to me like a WP:TWODABS situation for both full name and abbreviation in which the Ghanaian agency is WP:PTOPIC.

A WP search for MWCA turned up a handful of WP:NN-looking things, e.g. Midwest-U.S. China Association and Minnesota Wrestling Coaches Association. A Google search turned up several more NN-looking topics, e.g. Midwest Writing Centers Association and Minnesota Weapons Collectors Association; but also several hits for Mobile World Congress Americas, which is mentioned but not abbreviated in our article Mobile World Congress. I found no evidence of MWCA in other-language WPs (which doesn't mean there isn't any; but few languages make appreciable use of both 'C' and 'W'). I don't think there's material for a DAB page on MWCA. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Narky Blert's round-robin page move swap at his or her #1, but we have two very similar government ministries in two different countries, with no clear primary topic. Also, hatnotes are annoying and dab pages promote serendipitous learning & discovery, are cheap, mean only one additional user click, and generally wonderful in every way. So, call this a:

(1) Swap Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana) and Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs per WP:PRECISE.

(2) Disambiguate Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs and Ministry of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security

I'll draft a dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added several redlink potential targets to the proposed dab page, to encourage article creation, to be helpful to patrons/users, to promote discovery, and show there's no clear primary topic. Doug Mehus T·C 20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Narky Blert's proposal. I disagree that we don't have a primary topic: the Ghanaian agency is the primary target as its name is a perfect match for the title whereas the Sri Lankan ministry is not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, Can you clarify how we'd have a primary topic, of two African country government ministries, for such a generic acronym like 'MWCA'? Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 3 February 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.