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 Medieval warfare#Rise of infantry. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rise of Medieval Infantry over Cavalry → Infantry in the Middle Ages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Highly implausible that anybody would look for this actual phrase. The redirect only exists because it was generated when the page was moved to a more appropriate title a month after the article was created. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Medieval warfare#Rise of infantry. That section essentially says "cavalry were powerful" and "infantry became popular", which requires some light WP:SYNTHESIS to get us to this redirect (but I think it's still accurate). I also considered Military Revolution#The infantry revolution and the decline of cavalry, which makes the connection much more explicitly, but it seems that article is centered around one person's theory which has gotten mixed reception, and goes beyond medieval warfare into the early modern. I have to keep this weak because while I feel good about our ability to give a reader something for this, identifying a best place is difficult. And while the phrase doesn't look that implausible to me, it doesn't get many hits (just 30 in all of 2018). --BDD (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's beyond implausible. I just googled the phase with quotes around it and got 8 hits -- all of which were either Wikipedia or Wikivisually (from the same editor-person). In other words, ZILCH. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per BDD. We don't need to think about just the exact phrase for titles like this as the redirect will enable people using similar searches to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2019 (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 Canada, No consensus about Argentina, Delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Argentina → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Canada → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China India → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Indonesia → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Malaysia → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Thailand → Industrial and Commercial Bank of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Redirects from every branch of a company would certainly be WP:COSTLY UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think redirects from a subsidiary of a company make sense when the target article discusses it. Argentina is mentioned a bit at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China#2012. On the other hand, when a subsidiary is not important enough to be mentioned in the article, then it's fine to delete it. That would apply to India. Finally, Canada should be retargeted to Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck the nom. for the Canada branch and retargeted it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2019 (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) 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unused buildings in Kentucky → Category:Unused buildings in Kentucky  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This redirect (arguably not an encyclopedic topic) targets a category with only one entry, and it would not be appropriate to retarget it to that one entry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as housekeeping. Someone intended to make it a category like the other states. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is nowhere appropriate to send searchers, e.g. I've been unable to find broader lists of unused or disused buildings that include Kentucky. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe useful for a proper noun-type of category (but this is just a descriptive title), and of course it might be a reasonable article topic if there were a lot of coverage of the topic of unused KY buildings (journal articles looking at KY on the subject, looking at the sociological implications of KY unused buildings in contrast to comparable situations in TN, etc.), but it's not a good redirect to this category. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Holiday figure → Category:Holiday characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. "Holiday figure" is an ambiguous term and redirecting to a possibly-related category may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. In fact, I'm a bit astonished that we do not seem to have an article created for this concept yet. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (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) 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• HIV/AIDS experts → Category:HIV/AIDS researchers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. One can be an HIV/AIDS expert without being a researcher. Wikipedia does not have a list of HIV/AIDS experts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2019 (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) 01:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of errors (Animorphs) → Animorphs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect, also WP:ASTONISH ^{[Username Needed]} 15:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not for the above reasons. I don't think WP:ASTONISH applies here, as I would not be surprised to end up at the article on Animorphs when using this search term. It is also a not unlikely search term for someone searching for a list of errors, bloopers, plot holes, etc. in Animorphs, and if we had one this would be the most likely place for it. However we don't have a list of errors in this article (about the books) nor in the articles about the TV series or the video game so it should be deleted as misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Iford → Iford, East Sussex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The base name currently redirects to the disambiguated title which it can't per WP:UKPLACE and WP:PRECISION. This was formerly a DAB page and was changed to a redirect but now the place in Dorset has an article. Either the East Sussex article should be moved to the base name or the DAB page should be restored. I haven't listed this at RMT becuase I'm not sure if the Sussex place it primary but there is implied consensus already for it to be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Swap so Iford, East Sussex redirects to Iford, with a hatnote to Iford, Dorset. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. I fail to see how a village of 200 people would be the primary topic. It appears the current set-up is due to the fact that the East Sussex Iford was the only topic on Wikipedia at one point. Judging from the rather lengthy hatnotes, there now seems to be other topics (and plausible error) to disambiguate from. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. There are three topics so far (the manor is commonly known as simply "Iford", so it's not a WP:PTM), and judging by their respective articles and the distribution of the results of a quick web search, none appears to be the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate and include a see also to Ilford and Ilford (disambiguation) as I've seen both the place in London and the film manufacturer misspelled this way on several occasions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, disambiguate as nom. Yes there are only 2 "Ilford"s but the manor is also a valid entry and the place in London is a valid see also, thus we're kind of outside WP:2DABPRIMARY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2019 (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 as the page is no longer a redirect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Socotra Island xeric shrublands → Socotra  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Soctora Island probably has some nice xeric shrublands, but you won't be able to learn about them at the target. Delete per WP:REDLINK until this can be described somewhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've drafted a stub text with a few citations, including a major WWF account. This is an important habitat and we deserve at least a stub article about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stiti Vayu Muktyuttonasana → List of asanas#Asanas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable yoga pose recently created by Daniel Lacerda and not taken up anywhere significant. Currently redirects to List of asanas, where it (rightly) isn't. Nowhere else to redirect it to, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spoilsport → List of X-Men enemies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Generic term, article recently deleted under AFD. Probably better linked elsewhere to define the term. Killer Moff (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can be moved to Spoilsport (comics) if disambiguation is needed. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate all the minor pop culture WP:DABMENTIONs (songs and TV episodes), mainly to have a WP:COATRACK on which to hang a ((wiktionary)) link. Drafted below the RFD tag. I am unable to locate any Wikipedia article which discusses the X-Men character. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per 59.149... Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (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) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sleep in → Choice Hotels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The concept of "sleeping in" is not restricted to one hotel chain. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It originally redirected to Sleep Inn, then Sleep Inn was moved to Choice Hotels. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as there also is no article on "sleeping in" for retargeting. ComplexRational (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although it could be a typo for Sleep Inn which is a brand of Choice Hotels (thanks Pikamander2) it's also a common expression, so it's confusing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of confusion. It's not implausible; when I saw the title and the target, my first thought was something related to Sleep Inn. However, the combination of capitalisation difference and spelling difference makes it less plausible as an alternate title for that purpose, and since "sleep in" has another much more common meaning, we shouldn't treat double-typo-for-less-common-meaning as important enough to get the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2019 (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.