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. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_28#A_Journey_to_Meet_Love ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Past Life and Life → Netflix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Opinionated. Redirects shouldn't refer to their target as if it was the 'Past Life and Life" (which no sources exist for). If it were a show, it's not listed in the article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't understand the nominator's "Opinionated" comment (but WP:RNEUTRAL might be relevant), however the term is not mentioned on the target article, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. There was a Past Life (TV series) but that wasn't known as "Past Life and Life", nor was it apparently associated with Netflix (according to the article it aired on Fox). Indeed the only place I can find this other than as part of a longer sentence, and the only association of this term with Netflix, is this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:By "opinionated" I was referring to "The City of Building Blocks" redirect (below as of time of writing), as it seemed as an opinion. However, I've now realised it isn't applicable for this redirect and struck it out. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 10:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: Expressing an opinion isn't necessarily a reason to delete a redirect as they don't have to be neutral (see WP:RNEUTRAL) but they do have to be useful search terms - The hardest working man in show business comes to mind as an example). Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Obfuscates searches for Past Life (TV series) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 26 September 2018 (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. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_28#A_Journey_to_Meet_Love ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The City of Building Blocks → Netflix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Opinionated. Redirects shouldn't refer to its target as if it was "The City of Building Blocks" (which is unsourced). If it were a show, it's not listed in the article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all of the creator's other redirects to Netflix (mind if I add them to this nomination, or should I nominate separately?), per WP:R#D5 ("the redirect makes no sense"). Near as I can tell from Google, this is an ad-hoc translation of of the name of a Chinese television series (积木之城) scheduled for release in 2020, and has no evident connection to Netflix. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @59.149.124.29: I considered nominating them all, but I decided against it and ran these two as a test for consensus. You may nominate them if you like, but note that unregistered editors may or may not be prevented from nominations (this is a bit of a grey area, please do not quote this as fact). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @59.149.124.29 and TheDragonFire300:} There is no restriction on IP users nominating pages for deletion. They cannot complete AfD nominations for technical reasons (as they can't create pages) but there is a place where they can ask registered users to do that step for them. RfD nominations don't require creating a new page so there is no such limitation here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Thank you for the clarification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and some of this user's redirects can be deleted G3; "Sword Dynasty" is an anime show that doesn't appear to be on Netflix, and others appear to be pure inventions of the editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Searches point either to logo sets of cities or City of (whatever) programs named Building Blocks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 26 September 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Emerald Weapon → Compilation of Final Fantasy VII  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Sapphire Weapon → Compilation of Final Fantasy VII  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ruby Weapon → Compilation of Final Fantasy VII  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects used to point to Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)#WEAPON. That article was then redirected to Compilation of Final Fantasy VII following an AfD in 2013. Ruby Weapon is briefly mentioned in a pop-culture WP:EXAMPLEFARM at Ruby (color); the others aren't mentioned anywhere else at in Wikipedia. Unlike the above nomination, these redirects only have trivial edit history, without anything that needs to be preserved for WP:ATTREQ purposes. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as not mentioned at the target. Even if they were, Final Fantasy is definitely not the only game whose world contains such entites, so it's best to let the search engine handle these phrases. Currently, there are no hits for emerald or sapphire, but there are two for "Ruby weapon", none of which look promising as alternative targets. – Uanfala (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as other games and media use gem-based weapons, also the animated web series RWBY has notable weapons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 28 September 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely typo introduced by article creator, not likely to be helpful. The name "Cuziohyla" exists no where else in the universe besides this page and the few automated bots that link to it. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a very recent ((R from move)). Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It IS an unlikely typo. Not sure what being a recent redirect from move has to do with its viability? (other than making it less probable that there is actually something out there linking to it...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a redirect from move makes it more probably that there is something out there linking to it - this was the original location of the article, so where someone would have to link to before the move. Redirects from moves are normally kept for a time after the move to allow search engines, bookmarks, etc, to be updated. There is no set length of time for this but generally the longer a page was at the title it was moved from the longer the redirect will be useful. In this case it was at the original title for longer than it has been since the move. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD R3 recently created redirect from implausible typo. Should have been CSD'd rather than bring it here. SpinningSpark 07:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not eligible for speedy deletion given that someone (me) has recommended it not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No speedy deletion criterion can be made ineligble simply by the act of objecting to it. Speedy deletion is black and white; either the criteria have been met or they have not. You would be right if I have recommended speedy deletion without citing a CSD criterion, but that is not the case. SpinningSpark 11:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct. There are some speedy deletion criteria that are absolutely black and white (e.g. copyvios), but others less so - including R3 as it requires interpretation of what is and is not implausible. If there is any good faith objection to speedy deletion for any page at XfD then it is not speedy deletable for any reason other than G9 (office actions), G12*, F2 or F9* (*unless the objection is that it is not an unambiguous copyright violation). R3 explicitly excludes redirects from page moves, unless the moved page was also created recently. The moved page was created on 8 September, which is in the grey area for recently created, and redirects from page moves should in most cases be retained until they are no longer useful. In this case my contention is that it is useful. Consensus may disagree with me, but only consensus can do that - speedy deletion cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The typo was clearly made by the editor who created the article, so it isn't implausible, and the redirect isn't confusing or misleading, so there's no benefit to deleting it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. funplussmart (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a hard-to-spell word. Some of us have fat fingers. Someone has obviously made this typo before; someone may well make it again. Hell, I'd probably make it right now if I were trying to type it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and Arms & Hearts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 2 October 2018 (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.