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 Bedtime. I was going to go with the disambiguation option, but this is the only article that mentions this phrase (cf. MOS:DABMENTION). --BDD (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuck in → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Tuck-in → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Tucked in → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Tucking in → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Tucks in → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of the redirects' titles are mentioned at the target. That, and the redirects are rather ambiguous, considering that the redirects probably have a more notable connection with the phrase "tuck into bed", amongst others. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Tucking in, which I have converted to a disambiguation page. If there are multiple uses of the phrase for which we have articles, a disambiguation page is the best solution. Neelix (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to bedtime. The connection with food is obscure and would be deleted per WP:RFD#D8 if not for the more well known phrase. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to bedtime. "Tucking in" as a synonym for eating is very obscure, and I cannot imagine anyone searching it with the intent of getting to "eating". ~ Rob^Talk 01:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Tucking in, the DAB at Tucking in, per User:Neelix. "Tuck in" is a very common phrasal verb in Cockney English and perhaps other British dialects, and not at all obscure: to the extent if I were a lexicographer I would call it informal rather than slang. (Though what does it mean for pigs in blankets?) Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added bed-making to the DAB page and changed the other entries so as not to go via the redirects at Tucking in (food) and Tucking in (parenting), which I've listed here separately at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_6#Tucking in (parenting, food). These are not strictly WP:NOUNs, anyway (they're present participles). Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Tucking in per above points in favour of this. Rubbish computer 13:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The dab is essentially a dictionary entry, and we shouldn't do that per WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary doesn't include "eating" at wikt:tuck in, which is why I labeled it as obscure. In addition, Eating fails WP:DABMENTION because "tucking in" isn't mentioned there and would be removed from that proposed dab under normal circumstances. Also, bedtime should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so a secondary meaning would be in a hatnote anyway. Perhaps we could retarget it to wikt:tuck in as a compromise? The wiktionary entry also includes a football/soccer use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomimator opinion change/tweak: Retarget all to Bedtime. This seems to be the best-known use of this phrase (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). A hatnote at the top of Bedtime can be added to refer the reader to Eating if need be. (I think creating a disambiguation page is too much at this time.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (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 La Palabra. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Palabra → Word  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Palabras → Word  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure about this one. On one hand, WP:FORRED since words are not a concept exclusive or originating from Spanish. However, I have a feeling that this is probably used as a loanword in some literature, but I cannot find any examples from search engines. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Wiktionary entry for "palabra" indicates that your hunch is correct about it being a loanword in English. Neelix (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neelix: In my opinion, since the Wiktionary entry identifies the nominated redirects translated as "word", but doesn't show a reference on how that word came to exist in the English language, I cannot support these redirects to remain targeting an encyclopedic without mention in the article, and a reference confirming the use in the English language. For now, my best alternate suggestion is to soft retarget both to their respective Wiktionary entries (wikt:palabra and wikt:palabras). Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for verification? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to La Palabra. It's a better solution than Wiktionary due to what Steel1943 alluded to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This solution makes sense to me. Neelix (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to La Palabra per Tavix. We can also add the wiktionary entry in that dab. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to La Palabra per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thanks for the draft. Deryck C. 15:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glass is not exclusively French, so WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate 53W53 (Tower Verre), Verres, Verre (restaurant), Valerio Verre, Verres hageni, Verres corticicola, Sufflamen verres (S. verres); -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Verre (restaurant) which seems to be unnecessarily disambiguated, or move that page over the redirect. The others are partial title matches and disambiguation is inappropriate. A hatnote to Verres and/or to 53W53 might be appropriate, though "Tower Verre" just means "glass tower" so I'm puzzled as to why an under-construction skyscraper would have that as an official name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, we'd actually move Verre (restaurant) to Verre due to unnecessary disambiguation. In fact, I'd support this option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation pages usually also contain people with that surname, of which we already have Valerio Verre -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? We haven't Verre (disambiguation) nor Verre (surname). Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand where you are coming from with this opinion (since I share it), but due to the lack of notability with the only surname subject by their surname, I wouldn't consider the "disambiguation page-creation" option until at least 2 biographical subjects with the surname exist. At this point, at best, a hatnote should suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Steel1943. If Verre is open, there is no need for the DAB to it (we obviously hat note). I think in that restaurant the meals are rather oleaginous, but that is just Verre de gris. Si Trew (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate: 58.176 already created a draft dab under the redirect for Verre/Verres and I agree that there's enough there for one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Steel1943. Since none of the "Verres" usages are plurals of any of the "Verre" usage, lumping them together looks wrong. I've added a hatnote to Verres, and the restaurant article should then have one to the footballer. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Rubbish computer 15:37, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Chef (2015 film) → Jon Favreau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as confusing and per a faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL. Chef (film) (not "The Chef") is a 2014 film, not 2015. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:38, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Battle for Bonneville (film) → Jon Favreau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Battle for Bonneville (film) → Jon Favreau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Battle for Bonneville → Jon Favreau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Battle for Bonneville → Jon Favreau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. There were rumors he was going to direct a film by that name, but rumors = WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:38, 6 August 2015 (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. Dsimic's edits give the redirect context, however, and some promise of satisfying readers. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Project Fi → Google  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No content, implausible redirect - I doubt the topic is notable for creation as an article in itself as it is not easily verifiable. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic of a redirect does not need to be notable; that's the whole point of having a redirect rather than an article. Clearly plausible search term (4,824 hits in past three months). Verifiably associated with Google (see e.g. Wall Street Journal [1]). And actually discussed there (Google#Products and services, at the bottom; might want to add an ((anchor)) so that users following this redirect can actually see the description of Project Fi rather than having to scroll to find it.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. I actually disagree with the nominator that this subject doesn't seem notable, given what is currently in the article which this nominated redirect currently targets. Most likely, this subject will have a different name later in its existence, but for now, if this is the only name it has, might as well free up the title so that it can become an article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of United States mobile virtual network operators for the time being. It seems to involve more companies than simply google.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The redirect is just fine, there are absolutely no reasons to delete it. If there's a better destination to point it to, compared with the change in redirect link I've made, that would be Ok. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Make a Lemma I'm quite surprised that Project Fi doesn't have its own Lemma. It is a unique, technologically advanced one-of-its-kind service. It should be explained in detail. Ds77 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2015 (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) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:FORRED; history is not a concept exclusive to German-speaking cultures. Also, I'm not seeing any evidence of this redirect being used as a loanword in any variation of the English language. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. Oddly I thought this was a loanword, but searching around I can't find any uses in English (or any other language but German). Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED, WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Unless the reader is a German-reader trying to locate the version of this article on the German Wikipedia, but somehow accidentally ended up on this version of Wikipedia. In that case, this redirect is misleading and harmful to German readers, especially if they do not know English. Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFFL.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:42, 9 August 2015 (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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on the edit history, this seems to have been the name of a mobile Wikipedia project, but it's not mentioned at the target article and I can't find external sources for it either. BDD (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could virtually refer to anything. (By the way, reminds me of that userbox with "This user feels physical pain when hearing Wikipedia referred to as "wiki"" or something like that, you probably know what I mean, lol). - TheChampionMan1234 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! --BDD (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D2: what does this even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 August 2015

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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Go away → Template:Retain orphaned  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I guess the idea here is that when you see this on a page, you're supposed to "go away" and leave it alone. But I would've assumed it meant the page should go away, that it was some sort of deletion template. Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 ("might cause confusion"). BDD (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "confusion". It seems equally likely to me for it to go to ((in use)) or ((nobots)). Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:49, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The scientific name for the" clamper' → Clamp (tool)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably delete per WP:NOTFAQ, if that applies. Either way, it's a unlikely search term for several reasons since 1) the word "clamper" is nowhere in the article, 2) the redirect has a misplaced quotation mark set (the space should be before the quotation marks), and 3) the quotation mark set is followed by a comma instead of another quotation mark set. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TITLE (WP:TSC, WP:CONCISE), and WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. This is not the scientific name for the "clamper". Clamper is a DAB, but no entry, nor the page itself, is a suitable retarget. Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete really confusing at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFD#D5.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per every reason listed above. Rubbish computer 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsensical search term -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2015 (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) 14:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strokeit → Pointing device gesture  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:PROMO; from research, this seems like the name of an application that performs this task, but is not mentioned in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to The Stroke. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would more likely be about masturbation or petting animals -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2015 (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 Guardia. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot find a good retargetting option for this redirect. This redirect previously targeted Giardia lamblia until the target was changed to Police due to being the term of the "Irish police". From my research, the term for the Irish police is actually spelled "Garda", but is a WP:FORRED violation either way. And as shown, Giardia lamblia isn't a spelling match, and it's a partial title match anyways. Either way, I am neutral on retarget to Guardia since Guardia is a disambiguation page, and I personally am not a fan of misspellings to disambiguation pages due to the possibility that someone could truly be looking up a term by the actual spelling in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Guardia and add Giardia into the "see also" section as a mispelling choice -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added Garda (disambiguation) in the See Also of the DAB at Guardia, since I can see this being a misspelling for the Irish Garda Síochána, to which Gardaí redirects, as does Gardai without the diacritical mark. The lede there states that "Gardaí" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is used commonly by Irish English speakers as well as by Irish Gaelic speakers, so it's not foreign, it's assimilated into Irish English.

On balance, then, I think we should retarget to Garda Síochána as a ((R from misspelling)) but because it is cognate (I presume) with the Spanish and Italian that may be a WP:SURPRISE; although we have Garda Síochána#Terminology (as the first section) which explains this all, we don't have etymology. We could add a hatnote for the misspelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up gardai or garda in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Comment. Wiktionary gives the etymology (of Irish garda) as from Old French language, so I suppose they are cognate. We should probably add an ((etymology)) to the article. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Guardia. Rubbish computer 16:17, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Steal a car and go to Las Vegas → Eyes Without a Face (song)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think it is highly unlikely that any reader will search for this 1983 Billy Idol song using this lyric. I know redirects are cheap but this one seems unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOTLYRICS and WP:COPYVIO. Pushing it with copyvio, maybe, but nearly all lyrics (certainly of 32-year-old music still in print) are copyrighted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, specific lines from songs should only be redirected if those lines are highly significant in context to the song title, e.g. "Teenage Wasteland". Crow^Caw 23:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (And, on a bit of a funny note, I oppose any retargetting option that is a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, which is what I thought this nomination was about originally when I read the name of the redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Central Asian languages are not relevant enough to apricots for this translation to be mentioned on the target page. This redirect is probably supposed to be in Urdu, though it might be Pashto. Either way, it is spelled wrong. It also uses deprecated Arabic presentation forms. Gorobay (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 16:20, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marmayogi (2010 film) → Kamal Haasan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such film exists. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Not at target, nor at Marmayogi. Not hatnoted at Marmayogi. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 16:21, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts and Figures dates in Sunderland's history → List of dates in the history of Sunderland  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary JZCL 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles "x" contain facts on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 17:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 09:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible search term due to the awkward syntax. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (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) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts about Walsingham → Walsingham  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary JZCL 09:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles "x" contain facts on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 17:08, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts about the internet → Internet  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary JZCL 09:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles "x" contain facts on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 17:08, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Information on recycling → Computer recycling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should not, if anywhere, go to computer recycling. Should probably be deleted anyway. JZCL 09:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles "x" contain information on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present information -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 17:09, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Information about urban livelihood → Rural community development  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary JZCL 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete misleading Mismatch about what the destination is supposed to be about. rural development is not urban livelihood. Further, all articles "x" contain information on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present information -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 67's points. Rubbish computer 17:10, 6 August 2015 (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) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Information about my village Mona Syedan → Mona Syedan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page contents moved, and this should have been deleted with it. JZCL 09:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles "x" contain information on x; useless search term, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to present information -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 17:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not useful as a redirect.- MrX 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not my village or Wikipedia's village. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2015 (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 withdrawn by nominator (me). Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:FORRED; Hell is not a concept exclusive to Swahili-speaking cultures. (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is discussed in the target article although expansion won't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd. I could have sworn that I did a search on the page, and could not find this word. With the information presented above, I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2015 (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 deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Northern Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association (NOUASA) → Northern Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Northern Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association is the current title of article this redirects to and NOUASA redirects there as well. changed the one wikilink in the article namespace currently directing here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as NOUASA appears to refer primarily to this. Rubbish computer 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rubbish computer: The content currently at Northern Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association was moved from this redirect in question. "A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page)" from WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Both Northern Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association and NOUASA redirect there, and the above guideline seemed to say this kind of title is inappropriate (almost like an improper disambiguation). Just wanted to comment, and perhaps dissuade you from your keep. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Godsy's point. Rubbish computer 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 09:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @WilyD: "A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page)" per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. It states that both should be created and one should direct to the other. It specifically addresses redirects; it doesn't say to redirect what it states "should be avoided if at all possible" to the article. Searching either of the terms or the terms combined will get to this article easily. This redirect is improper and serves no purpose. Parenthesis are used to disambiguate in titles (see WP:NCDAB), not in this manner. My rationale may be complicated, or you may not agree with it, but to say "no rationale presented for deletion" is incorrect. I could be completely wrong, but I still gave a "set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief", which is what a "rationale" is. I didn't just simply state "delete". Respectfully,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tokyogirl79: This now redirects to a page speedily deleted. I've thrown a G8 tag on it, perhaps this can be expedited and closed, if you're not busy. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Sorry I didn't notice the redirect! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 10 August 2015 (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 procedural close; converted into an article. Thanks, Godsy! --BDD (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Confiture → Fruit preserves  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED; fruit preserves are not exclusive to cultures that speak French. (However, per some research, it seems that this word might [I cannot truly confirm this] be used in the English language as a loanword. Either way, at the present time, the redirect is not mentioned in its target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears to be differentiated from fruit preserves and to have entered into English usage. Cuisine of Corsica and Confiture de lait have the term in their text. Confit (specifically Confit#Fruit confit) is similar, but different. I'm leaning towards deletion to encourage creation WP:REDLINK.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Confit" is definitely used in English, and I had only heard of it in the context of fruit before. This looks like a long form of that word, but it's not mentioned at the Confit article, nor in its French equivalent. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is (and linked) at fr:confit de fleurs (IW en:Candied fruit) and fr:confit de vin, though. "Confit" and "confiture" seem usually to refer to savoury and sweet preserves respectively, but "Candied fruit" is the sore thumb there. Si Trew (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in case there is potential for a separate article on this, per WP:REDLINK; or if there is not, per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 09:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, have you found that this term refers to fruit preserves specifically? There seems to be confusion here—how did you determine that this is the content a reader would be looking for? --BDD (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sur. Est-ce qu'il y a des gens qui l'utilisent pour des autre choses? If it needs to be disambig'd, I don't see why that'd be controversial, but I don't see that that's the case here. Nor, really, does it read like anyone else thinks confiture might be a mistype for confit. WilyD 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So confit can be sweet or savory, but confiture always refers to fruit? I can see how this would confuse readers—I'm confused! --BDD (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I said, I'm confused, and I don't think this will be helpful for readers. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• According to wikt:confiture, this can refer to either fruit preserve or candied fruit in English (so using WP:RFOREIGN is at least somewhat misleading). This presents a sort of WP:XY case: if you target to one of them, you leave out the other. Since it has given some of us a fair bit of confusion, I'm going to advocate a soft redirect to wikt:confiture which would be the best target to help clear that up and won't leave readers in the dark like deletion would. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BDD: If you'll speedy delete this per WP:G6, I have an article stub ready to move there. User:Godsy/Confiture.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:27, 17 August 2015 (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) 14:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. The definition of this word seems to be "belief in ghosts". The closest possible retargetting option I could find is Fear of ghosts. Otherwise, I think that an article could be made for this subject, so I would say delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Seems to be a promising mysticism article according to my Google Book search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 17:11, 6 August 2015 (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.