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. This is close enough that it could've been called no consensus, but the outcome is the same. I've added the hatnote that largely accomplishes the same work as Soumya-8974's disambiguation draft. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:FOREIGN → Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It seems better to have this redirect to the section on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, as it seems like a more nature target. Further, this would be a better redirect to advertise there than "NOENG" (which seems overtly negative against non-English sources, which is not true). Masem (t) 16:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retarget - According to the links, this shortcut has been in use since at least 2015. It's too late to change now without breaking old discussions and confusing people who have gotten used to this spelling. If your proposed target was something like (the hypothetical) "WikiProject Foreign Languages" or another page that had a very strong claim to the word "foreign," I might be more open to a retarget, but that is not the case with this proposed target. --NYKevin 01:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. Draft will be added below. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Draft added. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (oppose retargeting and disambiguation) per NYKevin. The entire benefit of that disambiguation page can be achieved by adding a hatnote at the target without any of the very considerable problems caused by breaking years worth of links and creating ambiguities where none presently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not keep as currently targeted: the term can be taken to refer to at least two targets, and the current one doesn't even seem the best one. This is a relatively new redirect (not to be confused with the established WP:RFOREIGN), it was only created in September last year, and it's only got four incoming links that are not related to this discussion: two of them intentional (from March this year), one (from 2016) most likely a typo, and one from a 2015 comment by SiTrew where he observes that it's a good thing the redirect doesn't exist. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that Soumya's draft disambiguation page looks like an excellent solution. – Uanfala (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think though it's best to immediately agree with SiTrew though. This was the same guy who hated the redirects from Eubot so much, he said this comment about the creator of the bot. Oh also, he failed to do some basic WP:BEFORE with the redirects from diacritics. I'm sure he made some decent contributions since I only read about him just today, but just looking at his talk page and the two discussion that led to him being topic banned and site banned, yeesh. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though this redirect had been used only two times since creation (ignoring the pre-2019 uses), I don't think it's a good idea to break those two discussions. Thryduulf had provided an alternative: hatnotes. I think that's the best option to pursue. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather we fix those two links now than be stuck for eternity with an ambiguous redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (U
    • There are hundreds of (potentially) ambiguous WP shortcut links that don't cause any problems because hatnotes exist - nearly all that are three or fewer characters for example. This one is no different. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we shouldn't edit closed discussions, so we can't "fix" those links. Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixing links is one of the many edits to others' comments that are explicitly allowed by the guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Uanfala: I read WP:TPO and it seems to say that if it was not your post, then you should ask the person who placed that post for permission to edit it. If you get their permission, I will respectfully request for the DAB page. OcelotCreeper (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relevant bit is at WP:TPO#Fixing links. You do not need an editor's permission to fix a broken link in their post. – Uanfala (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The link is not broken. You might wish to make it so, but you've not given any convincing reasons why a dab page or retargetting would be better than adding a hatnote, let alone why the work of breaking and fixing the links (and finding and fixing any unlinked references) and cleaning up any links and unlinked references intended for the existing target added in the future, is outweighed by those advantages. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hatnotes should only be used if there's a primary topic. And on a side note, are you implying that fixing two links is more work than trying to persuade people that these two links shouldn't need to be fixed? :) – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Uanfala: I suggest putting links of those 2 discussions on your userpage and wait until there is a clear consensus to keep, delete, dab, or retarget before changing the links. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Uanfala: Just as is the case with literally almost every long-established shortcut redirect, there is a primary topic here: the topic it has been pointing to for years. And yes, it will be a bigger job to fix those links now and in the future than convincing even you that they don't need to be fixed, because when the discussion is over you will respect the consensus and move on whereas a changed redirect will need to be monitored for incorrect new links (and unlinked references) for several years to come. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thryduulf, could it perhaps be that you're still confusing this redirect (created less than a year ago, virtually unused) with WP:RFOREIGN, the well-established years-old shortcut that everybody used until recently? – Uanfala (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Links of this sort are highly likely to be used in edit summaries, which you can't possibly modify. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which do not appear in special:Whatlinkshere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – There were only 11 pageviews from April Fools to 23 April. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 views in 3 weeks is a significant number for a redirect, especially a shortcut to a page that doesn't need to be referenced often. For comparison, WP:DSTOPICS got 13 views in the same period, WP:CSK only 10. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't retarget and leave a hatnote. Given that WP:FOREIGN has been used as an alternative for WP:RLOTE a few times, it's probably best to leave the redirect where it is and instead leave a hatnote on WP:RLOTE saying WP:FOREIGN redirects here, and a few alternatives. OcelotCreeper (talk) 13:02, 15 June 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) 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian Fitzpatrick ( politician) → Brian Fitzpatrick (American politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this term is kinda ambiguous, with there also being two other politicians with that name listed on Brian Fitzpatrick. I recently created the correctly formatted title that redirects there. Regards, SONIC678 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @1234qwer1234qwer4: in the same essay you cite as your entire nomination for these redirects, there is the passage [You should] not [be] sending redirects to RFD, unless there is a serious problem that can't be solved any other way. Given that, it's best to make your nomination more than merely one abbreviation given that abbreviation contradicts your nomination. — J947 ^[cont] 23:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the disambiguator has an unnecessary leading space. The correct version Brian Fitzpatrick (politician) exists as a redirect to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Malformed qualifier; needless clutter when the correctly-formed (and now categorised) ambiguous redirect Brian Fitzpatrick (politician) already exists. Keeping this one would just about guarantee that the two will get disconnected at some stage. Narky Blert (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Brian Fitzpatrick for the usual reason: RHARMFUL. — J947 ^[cont] 18:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Implausible and malformed qualifier. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:00, 16 June 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) 15:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Collins ( politician) → Chris Collins#Politics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the disambiguator has an unnecessary leading space. The correct version Chris Collins (politician) exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Malformed qualifier, unnecessary clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; useless to nominate per RHARMFUL. — J947 ^[cont] 18:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Useless redirect with a malformed qualifier. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:01, 16 June 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) 15:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, keep both per K4 and RHARMFUL: these redirects are useless to nominate or to delete. — J947 ^[cont] 18:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also – I might be wrong on this but I think a lot of European languages use spaced-out parentheses like in the second redirect here; if so, that redirect isn't a misnomer but a modification. — J947 ^[cont] 18:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Malformed qualifier with unnecessary spacing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, I have not come across such spacing in European languages, and anyway this is English Wikipedia so such usage would not carry much weight here. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 19 June 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 deleted by Victuallers per G1. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Common Sense( Scottish Magazine) → Common Sense (Scottish magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be unambiguously created in error: there are 3 errors in it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shhhnotsoloud: Three? I only see two. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @1234qwer1234qwer4: no space before bracket; space after bracket; capital M. But I see misplaced bracket could be one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 3 errors, as noted by Shhhnotsoloud; and that is too many. Narky Blert (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per K4 and RHARMFUL, useless to nominate or delete. — J947 ^[cont] 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible redirect with 3 errors as noted above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 16 June 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) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• South Derry Brigade → Provisional IRA Derry Brigade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no evidence the "Derry Brigade" and the "South Derry Brigade" are the same entity. Since I can imagine there will be some confusion among people not totally familiar with the terms, the Derry Brigade were based in the city of Derry. Despite the name, the South Derry Brigade were not based in the southern part of the same city, but the area of South Derry which is known, at least on Wikipedia, as the southern part of County Londonderry. I have previously removed unverified claims from the target article that these two brigades were the same entity, I had not realised a redirect also existed. FDW777 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I agree with their distinction between South Derry (the city) and South Derry (the county). South Derry Brigade looks like a missing article, which will never be written while this redirect exists. Narky Blert (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unlike the brigades we do have articles on, information is very thin on the ground on the South Derry Brigade. I can't find enough in references to write even a half-decent article, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if someone is up to the task. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 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 replace with new article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stockbroker belt → London metropolitan area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the target is sort-of right, its also sort-of-wrong, too broad and doesn't mention the term. The stockbroker belt is a loosely defined area on/around the southern/south western edge of the London metropolitan area. It's principally in Surrey, which is the article I sort of expected to end up at if there wasn't an individual one, but it's not mentioned there either - there are plenty of mentions in passing and I've not found anywhere that would be a good target. Ideally this would be retargetted somewhere, but in the absence of a good target I'm leaning towards deletion. I'll leave a note for the UK Geography Wikiproject about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not familiar with the term and have no stake in this discussion, but could there be enough references out there/rationale in order to make it its own article, if the term is distinct enough from either the current redirect or any existing article? BlackholeWA (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. A google search brings up mainly definitions and mentions in passing but there might be enough there if one was to dig deeper. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Write an article? It's a well-known term which has been around for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it were pre-WWII. I think of it as Surrey-ish, though not specific to that county. It's defined more by state of mind, rail connections to London, and house prices. Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Article stub - How about this? User:BlackholeWA/Stockbroker Belt. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the lead of that a bit, but it otherwise looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good, I guess we wait for the nom to be closed and then it can be merged in then BlackholeWA (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, best to wait to see if anyone has objections and/or other ideas but it is currently looking likely that your draft will be moved over the redirect in a few days. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 19 June 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 anyone would like to try a different approach, I recommend creating a Draft:Slurred speech. Slurred speech (disambiguation) might be an option too, but I think we're really dealing with one concept, rather than multiple ones that share a name, so I'd personally recommend draft space. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slurred speech → Relaxed pronunciation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target article doesn't describe what seems to me the usual interpretation of the phrase "slurred speech" - poorly articulated speech as may come from somebody who is under the influence of alcohol or has a speech impediment. As such, the redirect is confusing. What do people think we should do with it? — Smjg (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect makes sense to me. The target article also addresses it in the lead: "Relaxed pronunciation ([...] or word slurs) is a..." --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
  Contribs}━━━┥ 02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. My point is that the article doesn't address the usual meaning of "slurred speech". What synonyms the article gives for what it is about is irrelevant to this concern. — Smjg (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't just mention slurred speech: slurred speech is the subject of the article. Maybe it could be expanded with psychological/physiological content (the reasons why people slur speech more in some circumstances in others), but the lack of content isn't reason to delete the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The article doesn't look to me to be about poorly articulated speech as may come from somebody who is under the influence of alcohol or has a speech impediment at all. As I look, it's about constructions like "would've", "gonna", "lemme", etc., which are part of everyday, casual conversation for many people, and would not be considered a sign of somebody being drunk or having a speech impediment. On top of all this, the bit about "but not in some constructed languages, such as Loglan or Lojban" further indicates that it is not about what I have given as the usual interpretation of "slurred speech".

  Furthermore, I don't understand the relevance of this: "but the lack of content isn't reason to delete the redirect". Nobody claimed that there is a lack of content. I shall furthermore point out that this is Redirects for discussion, not Redirects for deletion.... — Smjg (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nyttend. If there is content elsewhere on Wikipedia about physiological causes of slurred speech, what slurred speech my be symptomatic of or anything else you seem to think this article should be covering but isn't then a hatnote can be added to that, but I haven't immediately found anything. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion isn't about improving the content of the Relaxed pronunciation article. It's about the Slurred speech redirect. Do you agree that "slurred speech" normally means poor articulation of the sort caused by alcohol or a speech impediment? Nobody has explained how this and constructions like "gonna" and "lemme" constitute the same phenomenon. It's obvious to me that they're totally different phenomena. — Smjg (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does. But the same kind of speech is routinely caused by other factors, too. Slurred speech is relaxed speech. Don't force one narrow aspect of a concept onto the whole broad concept. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes what does what? And so what if slurred speech is relaxed speech? That doesn't make it relaxed pronunciation as that article describes it. — Smjg (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with nominator, "word slurs" are not "slurred speech" and I have personally been WP:ASTONISHED several times before by following this redirect. We don't currently have a page on inarticulate speech, so create disambiguation page between Dysarthria and Speech impairment. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• More investigation needed relaxed pronunciation is listed as symptom of alcohol intoxication. Possibly we should make this redirect into an article, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Yes, I noticed that as well, and it does look wrong. There are a few problems with that table. But we can talk about that on Template talk:Effect by alcohol level or somewhere. — Smjg (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to alcohol intoxication per Rich Farmbrough. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose retargetting there - alcohol intoxication is merely one of many things of which slurred speech is sometimes a symptom and so anyone searching for this would be very surprised to end up there. For the same reasons I would also oppose retargetting to any of the other conditions, ailments, etc, of which this is sometimes a symptom. At most this warrants a disambiguation page, but I remain unconvinced that more than a hatnote at the present target is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – reading the above and doing some digging of my own, slurred speech is mentioned on dozens of pages, but nowhere is it mentioned to any degree of detail. Search results are preferable to a dab page in this case, it looks like there are a lot of different conditions that cause it as a symptom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: slurred speech is a rather broad term and would benefit from an article proper that would look at the causes of slurred speech (alcohol, strokes, traumatic brain injury etc). In the meantime though, relaxed pronunciation (lack of emphasis on syllables and incoherence between vowels and consonants) as a general idea is different to slurred speech (prolonged facial movements and delayed vocalisation). ItsPugle (talk) 14:19, 15 June 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 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The weather in Durham → Durham#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Linking to dab page, and no mention there. This would also be ambiguous, as there are many places called Durham Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At the time this redirect was created (2009) the article about Durham, England was at the base title and that article does have a climate section. However, discussion in 2014 concluded there was no primary topic and moved the dab page to the main title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf. Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing significant links to it. And even a redirect to a '...#Climate' section fails to recognise the distinction between weather and climate. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are 138 other redirects of the same format, as seen here, but most don't have the ambiguity problem of this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weather ≠ Climate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tavix, LaundryPizza03, and Feline Hymnic: re "Weather ≠ Climate", this is true but climate influences weather and content that we have about the weather in a given locale is almost always located in a section called climate and the significant majority of people searching for "weather in X" will find content they are looking for at "X#Climate" (and the ones that don't will not find what they are looking for in an encyclopaedia). In other words the only problem with this redirect is the ambiguity of "Durham". Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 18 June 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 Sport in Australia#Organisation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sports Australia → C7 Sport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sports Australia generally refers to the federal government agency, not a defunct TV channel under the name "C7 Sport" that hasn't existed for 18 years. ItsPugle (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sports Australia sounds more of a broader term compared to just a TV channel. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what? No outcome has actually been proposed as of yet; just because it's being nominated for discussion shouldn't mean deletion is implied. — J947 ^[cont] 23:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I change my vote to Sport in Australia#Organisation per nom. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sport in Australia. That's what I'd be looking for if I searched for Sports Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: What about Sport in Australia#Organisation? While not specifically about Sports Australia as in the federal agency, it links to the overarching article for Sports in Australia while directing users primarily to the organisation of such sports if that's what they were heading towards. ItsPugle (talk) 13:14, 16 June 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. WP:SNOW Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gay referee → Jorge José Emiliano dos Santos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's an accurate description but far from unique. Other contenders for the title include Michael Mronz, Bill Kennedy (referee), Nigel Owens, John Blankenstein, Matt Cecchin, David Gough, Halil İbrahim Dinçdağ and Pat Patterson (wrestler). Certes (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per tabled evidence. Also, not really sure if gay referee is an appropriate redirect for an individual anyways, especially if that's not the only name they go by... ItsPugle (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes, I forgot Gay Jacobsen D'Asaro (who married her male coach). I'm not specifically advocating deletion but I don't see a better alternative. Certes (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's not unique to just one person and can be seen as inappropriate to be labelled the 'gay referee'. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for the same reasons as "Royal baby" was deleted back in September 2014-it's pretty ambiguous as to whom this refers to, there are a bunch of gay referees out there besides dos Santos. Regards, SONIC678 15:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the vast amounts of people in the world, there's probably more than one gay referee out there. If it weren't for our stance on cross-namespace redirects I'd suggest retargeting to a category like Category:Referees who are LGBT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. GiantSnowman 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really? Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are many other gay referees. --Xannir (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Basically passes WP:SNOW at this point. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 June 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 19:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhaj, Ror Kumar → Raja Dhaj  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I suggest that this page should be deleted because the title of this redirect page is highly confusing, as multiple names have been used for a single person. Arnab2305 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; helpful {{R from sort name}}: when a reader searches this up, they don't know the name of our article on Raja Dhaj, and using an different name is completely ordinary. Unlike what the nominator says, this redirect is not confusing. It seems to be a highly uncommon alternative name, but it falls under K4 – old links are truly abound with this redirect. — J947 ^[cont] 19:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is not a sort name. Sort naming means writing the surname first and then writing the person's given name after giving a comma. However, in this particular title, Dhaj is the person's given name, while Ror Kumar is his nickname. Would it be suitable if the title of a Wikipedia redirect contains both the given name and nickname together? I agree that old links are abound, but still, it is quite confusing. I searched Google for the Dhaj, Ror Kumar redirect, but instead, it automatically showed Raja Dhaj (see here or you may search it yourself). If it doesn't appear in Google Search, then the pageviews of this redirect will automatically reduce in future. Arnab2305 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arnab2305: please read K4: this redirect was from a page move and given it is unambiguous should be kept so readers clicking on links get to the place they want to go. — J947 ^[cont] 05:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fix ping to Arnab2305. — J947 ^[cont] 05:24, 17 June 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 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Global cooling denial → Climate change denial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target buidhe 00:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is pretty much the same thing just with a different context being the opposite of global warming and being a part of climate change. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - with no mention at target and no source to support it, there is no point in the redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyone who believes in global warming denies global cooling but not climate change. HotdogPi 18:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - same reason as Hotdogpi Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually agree with Captain Galaxy, this makes sense to me. --Xannir (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with both keep !voters above. Climate change in the climate change denial article refers to global warming, not global cooling. Keeping this redirect will only mislead our readers. It's better to delete this redirect and encourage recreation as a different article instead. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 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.