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. ✗plicit 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeon chang ma → Yo-Yo Ma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Google yields nothing relevant, nor even anything that clearly refers to an identifiable topic. Perhaps this makes sense as a mistranslation of Ma's name from Chinese? That's the only explanation that I can think of. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 23:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Although she deserves her own article, until then, redirecting to her brother seems like the best choice. Thmazing (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see. This is the person referred to in the article as Yeou-Cheng Ma. Not sure how I'd feel about a redirect with that spelling, but, do you have sources showing that this spelling is used to refer to her? (I'll note that Yeou-Cheng Ma currently is a redlink.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article (also WP:RFD#D10). Redirecting individuals' names to their notable relatives without any information at the target is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a correctly-spelled, capitalised, and hyphenated redirect might be helpful as a placeholder until she has her own article, given that a relative of a famous person might be a likely search term, and the target provides at least a bit of information about her. However there is no reason to retain a newly-created misspelling which appears nowhere else on the internet besides Wikipedia mirrors. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2021 (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 05:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title seven minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, old links have formed it seems. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "George Copeland", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What exactly is the point of this redirect? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete consistent with the others below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2021 (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 05:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title five minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pageviews. Too many pageviews to just be formed by editors clicking on entries in a list of such redirects. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with the nominator. The redirect was set in place because it's quick and easy, but an article that uses quotation marks as this redirect does is silly. PKT(alk) 22:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't comprehend. This redirect helps readers following old links go to the place they want to go. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps put it this way - when searching for a subject, you shouldn't use quotation marks.....that is to say, use Frank Merle rather than "Frank Merle". There's no need to use quotation marks in an article title such as this. PKT(alk) 23:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not about searching. It's about readers following old links in search of the article for Merle. What's the harm in having this redirect? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Francis Chickering", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @PKT: Not true. Searching for Frank Merle gives 2,520 returns including all the Franks and all the Merles. Searching for "Frank Merle" gives 19 results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As Shhhnotsoloud said, while it is plausible that a reader will search this, it is not plausible that their intention is to arrive at the article rather than the search results. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 suggests a good reason why this has any views. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (''S'')-iPr-PHOX → (S)-iPr-PHOX  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. As can be seen from the edit history of the target, it seems to have been moved to this title in error, as italicisation is achieved with a DISPLAYTITLE magic word, which was fixed a minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G6, unambiguously created in error. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title within a minute. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2021 (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. ✗plicit 09:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ephriam (fire emblem) → Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones#Synopsis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

typo and two miscapitalisations, implausible redirect Dudhhr (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (note old RfD), a reasonable misspelling and it's rather odd that the nominator is complaining about capitalisation when you look at their lower-case rationale... — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless disambiguation. Ephriam already goes to a disambiguation page that contains the character among other things._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it a pointless disambiguator if it literally disambiguates the title? — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a plausible mispelling and redirects are cheap. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (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 Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America)#Construction 2. Although there are potentially several Swaminarayan-related controversies, there is only one of 2021, so the redirects are so far unambiguos. There is less clarity on whether the redirects are plausible, but from the participants' comments (including some by those recommending deletion), it appears that the redirects will likely aid in reader searches. This closure should be taken as provisional, so the redirects can be nominated again at any time if any new evidence comes up. – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy → Dalit#2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham forced labor controversy → Dalit#2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The relevant content at the target was contested and removed shortly after this redirect was created. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep the content or not, but for as long as the content is not present, this redirect should not exist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe redirects don’t link to an article with a similar title, so it doesn’t make sense to keep them. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America)#Construction 2. Jay (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Jay. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hi all, Whenever I search for Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy, I get results relating to the Akshardham Temple Attack, which occurred in 2002. These redirect pages are confusing and makes the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are referring to an external search engine like Google, then we can't fix Google through Wikipedia. Someone looking for the temple attack will search for "attack" and not "controversy". Jay (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Jay, yes, I am referring to an external search engine. That is an interesting essay, but my comment is not related to the search panel on Google. I am not proposing to fix Google, but this is an opportunity to decrease the American-focused bias on Wikipedia. The issue, which Google is merely a tool to demonstrate, is that Swaminarayan Akshardham and controversy appears regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack in Gandhinagar, India. To illustrate, the lead of the Akshardham Temple attack article, about Swaminarayan Akshardham in Gandhinagar provides some context for that controversy, "In May 2014, a Supreme Court of India bench acquitted all the six prisoners of all charges and pulled up the Gujarat Police for shoddy investigation in the case." Someone looking for the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack will search for attack, but it is reasonable to think that someone searching for information regarding the subsequent legal actions would search for controversy. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no mention of the word controversy in the Akshardham Temple attack article. Nor is there a mention of controversy in the North America article, nor in the New Delhi article although the Yamuna river bank environment clearance is popular with Google as a controversy. I understand your point now, but "Creating bias with search results using words in the redirect's title" is not a reason to Delete. WP:RFD#D1 comes close but is not applicable here. Jay (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These pages do not contain useful page history that could be kept to comply with a page merger. It makes sense to delete the pages. Harshmellow717 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the redirect is not useful.

I agree with Skubydoo about the potential confusion but for different reasons: when I search Wikipedia using terms used in the titles of the redirect pages, the first result is the Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America) article. The proposed redirect to the same page would add an unnecessary extra step for users searching for information about the events in 2021 (and it could take users looking for information from 2002 to the wrong page). Hexcodes (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If searching for "2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy" returns the first result as the North America article, then isn't our search results as expected? Users looking for the information from 2002 will not have search keywords with "2021" in it. Jay (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I agree that the results are as expected. But I think that reflects the redundancy of the redirect. Additionally, users who know details like the years of the events would know enough to be able to find the relevant articles on their own. The labor lawsuit was filed in 2021, but--as I understand it--the allegations are for over a longer period of time, so I didn't include "2021" in my search terms when I searched Wikipedia. Hexcodes (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without including the year, when I search with "Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy", I get Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Delhi) as the first result. Are you saying you are getting the North America article? Jay (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching "Swaminarayan Akshardham labor" and getting the North America article. I tested the external search engine method Skubydoo mentioned, and it seems that "controversy" is not currently being used to describe the allegations presented by the NYTimes in any news outlets. Hexcodes (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think one of the main reasons for confusion is that the term “controversy” is not a term that is being used in the reporting on the 2021 allegations. These redirects fail to aid a user who is searching on Wikipedia.Golfer1223 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note. The above delete !votes are being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we near this becoming close-eligible, I would strongly encourage any would-be closer to hold off until the SPI is resolved. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:12, 2 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mitesh Patel (physicist) → Imperial College London  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect page; Reason 10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." MaryMO (AR) (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not mentioned. Note there is a new disambiguation page at Mitesh Patel (disambiguation), but there's no notable physicist mentioned in Enwiki that I can find. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above, but add an entry with the redlink to the dab page (blue linking to Imperial College London in the entry) per WP:DABRED. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2021 (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 restore articles. I won't be sending them to AfD or taking further action myself, but no prejudice against anyone else doing so. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Svea Rike → Europa Universalis: Crown of the North  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Svea Rike II → Europa Universalis: Crown of the North  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete or change scope of target.

The target article concerns the game also known as Svea Rike III, which is an entirely different game from Svea Rike I and II. It is therefore not a good redirect target for these two redirects. Either these redirects should be deleted, or the target article should be renamed and broadened in scope to include the entire Svea Rike series instead of only its third instalment. Rua (mew) 08:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Svea Rike II, as it is only mentioned as a game in the series at the target, and contains no real information about the game. Weak retarget Svea Rike to Reich#Usage_in_related_languages, where the phrase is discussed as a linguistics term. Hog Farm _Talk 15:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Svea Rike should be retargeted to Svealand or made a disambiguation page as Svea rike is an old name for Sweden, mentioned in Svealand, Swedes (Germanic tribe) and elsewhere. TSventon (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate "Svea Rike" per TSventon -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per WP:BLAR since the unilateral redirection has been objected to. Either way, it is a weird set up to have an article for the third installment of a game, and not the first two. I'd recommend a hatnote at Svea Rike for the other use(s). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Svea Rike to Svealand per TSventon and delete Svea Rike II. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As Tavix points out, Svea Rike was an article about the game that got controversially retargeted. I'm not keen on restoring it straight away, as its notability was questioned by several editors in the past. I think it's best if its history is preserved at a related title, like Svea Rike (video game), and the base page disambiguated. In the opinions above there is implicit disagreement about the primary topic, and I'm struggling to see one between a mediaeval Swedish term that's apparently not used in English and an obscure video game. – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Tavix and WP:BLAR. If notability is in question then take it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2021 (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. A third relist when there have been no new comments after the first doesn't seem like it's going to help. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tang-e Shur → Tang-e Shur-e Olya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Tang-e Shur" is one thing, "Tang-e Shur-e Olya" is a completely different thing. Olya means "upper". These abadis are in different counties in the same province. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore version before it was redirected and send to AfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this was relisted, here is context regarding "restore". The Iran abadi stubs had a consensus to mass delete, so the only question at hand is whether or not the redirect should be kept. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete given the close of the related RfDs. I don't think this is any different. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Without knowing what the rest of the name means, I think this one is okay. Since "Upper" is an adjective, redirecting FOO to Upper FOO when there is no notable FOO makes sense. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:46, 10 May 2021 (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. ✗plicit 09:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No vote here, just clearing it up .... it's the original youtube channel username, as can still be seen by visiting http://youtube.com/checkgate. Why did the creators open their account under the name checkgate? We don't know, and likely never will .... it's worth a mention that it seems to be a common noun, most prevalent in Indian English, and could at least merit a Wiktionary entry. —Soap— 18:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until/unless a Wiktionary entry is created, in which case soft redirect. A lot of YouTubers have usernames that don't have anything in common with the name they go by—Tom Scott, for instance, had his channel at /enyay for the longest time, to his chagrin—and I don't see any indication that anyone ever refers to the Cocomelon channel by this name outside of a handful of automated listings. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Earlier account name of Cocomelon per Soap. Jay (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Soap. This should not be ignored and should be mentioned in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If only there was a reliable reference. Jay (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that too. This could be a reasonable talk section on making sure there is a reliable source when adding. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Check valve, as valves are sometimes called gates -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2021 (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 San Dimas High School#In popular culture. ✗plicit 03:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• San Dimas High School football rules → Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• San Dimas High School Football Rules → Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The football rules of the fictional depiction of this high school are not mentioned in the target. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Heck, "football" isn't even mentioned at the target. Anyone looking for this topic would be very disappointed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• N.b., This is a quote from the film, and a full sentence ("San Dimas High School football rules!"), rather than a reference to the rules of a game. I don't see any benefit to keeping, though. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nom did not also nominate San Dimas High School Football Rules which redirects to Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits with a hatnote to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. I've added it to this nomination, because I think they should point to the same target, and am pinging @Dominicmgm:, @Compassionate727: and @BDD:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to San Dimas High School#In popular culture where it is mentioned, explained, and a link is given to another use of a song at Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ventral Attention Network (VAN) → Salience network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. An implausible redirect left behind by a user who mistakenly created a page not following Wikipedia's title style conventions. Existence of this redirect is harmful because it may give readers wrong impression about how title parentheses and disambiguation work. For example, United Nations (UN) does not exist, while UN (disambiguation) does. Aqua3993 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, correct, helpful, unambiguous, harmless. This nomination is more harmful than the redirect would ever be. Please don't move redirects, it confuses history. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 07:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the page existed under the redirect's title for 2 months. Although there were only a couple of edits during the time, it was back in 2007, and keeping helps keep the page move trail. Jay (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons → North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone#Seasons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No incoming links; these articles are now organised by season from 1950, so it's not a useful grouping anymore. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This redirect is continuing to get a lot of pageviews, suggesting that there are links from somewhere outside Wikipedia. There is no benefit to us in breaking those links (indeed as good internet citizens we should avoid breaking such links where possible) so we should link to the target which best matches what people are looking for. In this case, the best target is the current one where people will be able to find whichever pre-1980 season they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. If someone is looking for information on cyclone seasons in the North Indian Ocean prior to 1980 under the very recently deprecated naming scheme, this target is where that information lives. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:00, 27 May 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fading Colours → Metal Mind Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Daniel Kleczyński → Metal Mind Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Leszek Rakowski → Metal Mind Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• De Coy → Metal Mind Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A band and I assume members of the band. Not mentioned at target but the band appear on a track on a couple of compilation albums. "Fading Colors" is also a song on an album by another band, Mostly Autumn. Kleczyński has also served as a composer on a couple of video games. But no where is any info given on any of these folks that would make these redirects helpful. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fading Colours would be a plausible search term for Photodegradation (where Colour fade redirects). Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree I agree with these redirects. --Greysonsarch (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Greysonsarch: to be clear: you agree to deleting these redirects? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. These member redirects aren't useful without anywhere discussing their band. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Each of these terms has a handful of mentions in Enwiki, and a Search reveals better results than this target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2021 (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.