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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It would be better to delete this redirect to allow uninhibited Search than to target this one name-holder article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are no other plausible search terms for "Chaffe" that I can find so a ((R from surname)) to the article about the only notable person with that surname is best. If there are other uses then a hatnote or disambiguation page are also better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See later !vote lower down. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although surname holders are generally PTMs this is the only person we have an article for even though internal search does return mentions of other people. This was a DAB until recently when the place in California was deleted, if there are any other notable uses it can be changed back to a DAB or overwritten with a new article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Standard ((R from surname)). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused what do here. Uanfala's comment gave me pause but upon further research a large amount of mentions/searches of chaffe are typos (a lot of the time for chaffee, sometimes for chafee or chafe). Whether to keep, delete, or disambiguate in some manner this redirect I don't know. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets ((R from surname)).—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that an ((R from surname)) can exist does not automatically entail that it should exist. The justification for such a redirect is practically absent if the person isn't commonly referred to using just his surname. As pointed out already, there are various other people with the name that are mentioned on Wikipedia. If the redirect is deleted, then all of them will be accessible from the search, with Walter Chaffe still prominent as the first of those results. If the redirect is kept, then only Walter Chaffee will remain accessible, with navigation to the others cut off. – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If this subject isn't likely to be searched for by the single word then its unlikely any of those that are merely mentioned would be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Crouch, Swale unless and until there are other people or topics that would merit an entry on a disambiguation page, at which point it should be disambiguated. Currently I can't see any other use that is more than a passing mention so redirecting to the only notable use is most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: you've already !voted. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: Sorry about that, it wasn't intentional. I've struck out my earlier one so this, later, one should be the one evaluated by the closer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 31 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 11th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 12th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 13th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 14th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 15th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 16th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 17th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 18th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 19th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 20th millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 21st millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 22nd millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 23rd millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All of these should be deleted - after the 10th millenium, these are very rarely linked and unlikely search terms, and we have very little coverage at the target article on these millenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot321 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they are all getting uses, there is some coverage at the target, we don't want to encourage article creation and deletion wont bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed we don't want to encourage creation. I think some of these should probably be salted. Looking at statistics, all of these except for 11th millennium have only gotten a few dozen hits in the past year. 11th millennium got significantly more until November 2020, when it dropped to levels similar to the other pages. I have no idea why this is, I would guess a link from a highly-trafficked page, maybe. Regardless, the rest aren't significantly used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10001 redirected there until recently. (I was mistaken; it redirected to Timeline of the far future, and only until August.) HotdogPi 23:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Decently helpful. Pretty pointless to nominate a bunch of harmless redirects. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:46, 27 January 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 retarget to Next United Kingdom general election. Unanimous support for the retarget, including by the nominator (along with a healthy dose of WP:BOLD on my part - waiting 7 days will not alter the result here) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Next election in the United Kingdom → 2019 United Kingdom general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Either retarget to Elections in the United Kingdom, as Next election in Denmark targets Elections in Denmark, or delete as implausible. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not Next United Kingdom general election? 97.125.232.133 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I miss the "thanks" button for anonymous editors, and concur with this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is certainly not implausible. The question is whether "election" is more likely to mean "general election" than any other, and google results clearly show it is, so retarget to Next United Kingdom general election and add a hatnote to the broader elections page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Next United Kingdom general election. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:42, 24 January 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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Liberal Party of Canada leadership election → 2013 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, and also no longer next. "Next" means "in the future" and 2013 is clearly not. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL, no known upcoming election. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• no need to keep as it was made as a result of moving to a better title. It could redirect to Liberal Party of Canada leadership elections, but probably better to delete now as an anachronism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 24 January 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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eitz → Jerusalem Faction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search turned up a variety of seemingly unrelated Jewish organizations, and a Scholar search just turned up papers by authors with Eitz as a surname. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:56, 24 January 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. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Insurrection Day → 2021 storming of the United States Capitol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While there's a few recent opinion pieces referring to the Jan 6 events this way, a Google Scholar search suggests that various other events and commemorative days are more likely to be known by this name in a lasting fashion, including public holidays in the former Yugoslav republics. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results is more appropriate than a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently, might be an appropriate topical article or disambiguation page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When I google Insurrection Day, I see a big box telling me it's another name for Madagascar's Martyrs' Day. It's not a common term for the attack on the US Capitol. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and change to a disambiguation page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify list the various "Insurrection Day"s -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases → Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. The title is an accurate reflection of the article, which starts The following is a complete list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and is not an implausible search term (if it was implausible there would not be so many "complete list of..." titles) so there are precisely zero reasons to delete and no benefits will arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's comphrehensive argument. Also of note is that this redirect is an ((R from move)) and as such should be kept per K4. Due to incoming links, this redirect has received strong pageviews. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above. This is a reasonably accurate description of the target. BD2412 T 06:31, 27 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of encyclopedia topics → Wikipedia:Contents/Lists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:COMPLETELIST. This is not a good use of an XNR, this was previously nominated but ended with "no consensus". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target page states at the top "This is a non-comprehensive list of article lists, arranged by topic.". Since the page itself states that it is not a complete list this redirect is inaccurate and may confuse readers into thinking that a list they are looking for does not exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Unique case compared to the others. This is the most complete list of lists that we have, so this is seemingly the best place to send anyone searching in this manner. Additionally, this has been around since 2001, (see previous rfd for an explanation of why the history only goes back to 2003); no need to break old links wherever they might be, etc. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy and the previous discussion. Note that WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. While this isn't a complete list of titles it's a approximately complete list of topics and so is directly relevant to the content people using this plausible search term will be looking for and closer than any other page so the benefits of keeping outweigh the non-existent benefits of deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy. This is a very important page in the early history of the encyclopedia and is fairly helpful to readers as well. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:14, 27 January 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. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of Murdered Harry Potter Characters → List of Harry Potter characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only that, but it doesn't feature a list of murdered characters. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. Note also the miscapitalisation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Complete" is entirely unnecessary, and although the title might be a fit for r/technicallythetruth (although we don't include non-notables, so there's that); it is not fit for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No list of murdered characters is present at the target article. The list states that it only includes characters from the books, so it is unclear if characters from the spin-off movies and play are included. A list of murdered characters would likely be deleted as WP:FANCRUFT. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody, but in this case there is no list of murdered characters (complete or otherwise) and so it is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD per J947 (thanks for the note). That content was prodded by an IP user and the prod removed by DGG, so the content should not be deleted without discussion and RfD is not the place for that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: if this is deleted then it will be article content deleted through a back door way, which is arguably not in RfD's remit. I'd say deletion here is fairly reasonable, as the article was of very low quality, but there are differing views on this matter. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason RfD ought not evaluate the notability of content is that so much less attention is paid to matters here compared to AfD. Ten or so years ago it was routine but very unfortunate practice for articles to disappear in such a manner (especially article similar to the situation here, for characters of items in fiction of various sorts) : first they would be merged to the main article, often on the argument of keeping related things together, and a redirect made as is necessary in such cases; or an AfD would be brought --and although there was no consensus to actually delete--the closing found there was consensus at least that it should not be a whole article, and the solution was to merge. In either case, then the merged content would be gradually reduced until it became just a mention in a list., and then by inconspicuous editing the list in the article purged of some of the items on it or even emptied completely. The redirect would then be brought for the deletion on hte basis there was no relevant content in the linked article. This insidious process would be sometimes referred to as a smerge (The proper course, if it was really judged there was no basis for a separate article was for the merge to be made, and the merged content and redirect retained. ). For what is perhaps a clearer wording see Thryduulf's comment [1] in the discussion . DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 January 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 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of Secondary Colleges (Mauritius & Rodrigues) → List of secondary schools in Mauritius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Complete List of Secondary Schools (Mauritius & Rodrigues) → List of secondary schools in Mauritius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. The target even claims to only list notable schools. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The lists state that they are not complete listings and only include notable schools, so these redirects are misleading. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not per the inaccurate nomination - the search term is highly plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. A complete list of secondary schools is possible (I would expect the relevant government department has one for example), but we do not have one so we should not mislead searchers into thinking we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 25 January 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 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of My Name is Rachel Corrie Performances → My Name Is Rachel Corrie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. The target 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...does not even have a list either. It happened again. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't a list of performances at the target article, much less a complete one. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not per the completely incorrect nomination - the search term is highly plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. However this redirect is misleading as there is no such list of performances on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 25 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of species in genus Persea → List of Persea species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The completely incorrect nomination is the only misleading thing here - the search term is highly plausible, the target is a complete list of the species in the genus Persea, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. If it were not for the delete !vote above I would have been speedily keeping this as it's clear the nominator has not read anything other than the title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and delete WP:COMPLETELIST. HotdogPi 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Helpful, harmless, unambiguous, useful, ((R from move)), many, many pageviews... Nominating this is just uselessly creating process more than anything else. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are 99 accepted species in the genus Persea, and a quick check shows the list has 99 entries, so it is a complete list. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of Grewia species → List of Grewia species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the completely incorrect nomination is the only misleading thing here - the search term is highly plausible, accurate (the target is a complete list of Grewia species), WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. If it wasn't for the delete !vote above this would be a candidate for speedy keep given that the nomination is so inaccurate it is clear the nominator has not read anything beyond the title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and delete WP:COMPLETELIST. HotdogPi 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Otherwise delete all redirects as any redirect or redirects can imply that there are redirects for everything, according to the nominator's logic. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:45, 27 January 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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Astray (video game) → Category:2015 video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should not be a redirect to a category. Delete to encourage article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd retarget it to a relevant list, but I could not find it in a list like 2015 in video games. Redirecting to a category like this is terrible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find a mention of a video game called Astray. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The video game is non-notable. The only existence of a 2015 game called "Astray" is a random Steam game with only 155 reviews. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no point redirecting this page to a category that contains no relevant information on the video game. If neither the video game or developer/publisher are notable enough for an article then this should remain a redlink. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 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 17:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of extinct species → Lists of extinct species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:PANDORA/the newly created WP:COMPLETELIST. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Humanity has not even managed to catalogue all existing living species, much less extinct one. The idea that Wikipedia could somehow have a list of every extinct organism is preposterous, given that there are huge numbers of species (e.g. bacteria) that we will have no way of ever knowing they existed. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not per the completely incorrect nomination - the search term is not implausible (although it is less likely than some of the others nominated), WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. However this topic is one which it is not one in which it is not possible to have a complete list. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The list can't be made complete. HotdogPi 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, probably slightly more helpful to land the readers on a search page in this particular scenario. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:02, 27 January 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. As it was effectively blanked by its creator back in 2019 as a mistake, i'm treating this as an uncontroversial WP:CSD#G7. No other contributors prior to the copy-paste move, so no attribution issues to warrant a histmerge or anything. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Meetup/AfroCROWD-OFWA/WikiYearOfReturn → Wikipedia:Meetup/AfroCROWD-OFWA/WikiYearOfReturn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was created under this title in error, but instead of being moved, it was copied and pasted to Wikipedia:Meetup/AfroCROWD-OFWA/WikiYearOfReturn, but by the same user. Is a histmerge needed in this case? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:39, 24 January 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 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of Garbage songs → Garbage discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term and miscapitalization, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:PANDORA/the newly created WP:COMPLETELIST. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I might consider adding the original version to the Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create, or something similar. Otherwise, I can go with deleting it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article Neutral, but we don't want to lose the page's original form. Put it somewhere. HotdogPi 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete - I personally don't think that old 2005 history is particularly useful - A discography article is not a complete list of songs, generally only singles and other charted songs. The long list would be WP:UNDUE at the band's page, and I don't think it could stand on its own merits as a stand-alone article. Current target is misleading as it is most certainly not a complete list of songs, so it can't stay there, and I don't think there's anywhere better for it to point. Hog Farm _Talk 05:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no opinion on the quality of the redirect, but this shouldn't be kept solely because of the very bad old article in the history IMO. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target isn't a list of songs, it's a discography that only includes albums and songs released as singles. The article from 2005 is little more than a data dump list of song titles that is now 15 years out of date, I don't think there's any content worth preserving. It does get a few page views every month, but I suspect at least some of those are people looking for List of songs considered the worst. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huggle/Manual → Wikipedia:Huggle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to have resulted from an error; no point in having this XNR from mainspace. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless XNR. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:40, 24 January 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 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Photography workshop → Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Map workshop → Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Illustration workshop → Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These aren't the only instances of these kinds of workshop. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget somewhere relevant, these are egregiously bad XNRs. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:51, 24 January 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 New Federal State of China. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lude Media → GTV Media Group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no mention in the target article. May be related to the YouTube influencer mentioned on the Lude page, I don't know - but nothing is explained. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to New Federal State of China, where Lude is mentioned. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 24 January 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. Implausible due to a spacing error, consensus has rapidly become clear after the relist. ~ mazca ^talk 18:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Digg,Skye → Brogaig  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:COSTLY. The article was created 10 years ago today at this title and redirected the next day. Today I filed a RMT to move the edit history to the correct title saying that the redirect might be able to be suppressed but since it was created nearly 10 years ago it probably doesn't qualify. Its unlikely however since having been a separate article for less than a day to have gathered links so can probably be safely deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppressing the redirect would only be legitimate if the page was recently created (WP:CSD#R3 and WP:PMRC#7). Ten years is not recent by anyone's standards. The reason we don't allow that is that if the redirect has existed for a long time then deleting it may contribute to link rot (see also WP:RFD#KEEP point 4). I don't see any particular reason why that doesn't apply here. Hut 8.5 09:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the issue with the redirect? Nothing clear stands out to me. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The issue is that the spacing is ommited, which would certainly be WP:COSTLY if widely applied. The correctly spaced Digg, Skye is of course appropriate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per the spacing and the proper redirect brought up by UnitedStatesian. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible spacing error, only got 4 page views in the year prior to being listed here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 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 keep. due to the only person arguing against it being indefinitely blocked. If there's a well-thought-out reason this needs to be discussed, it can be in future, but there's clearly no coherent argument being made to change anything right now, and several coherent ones for leaving it alone. ~ mazca ^talk 13:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposing no change/keep as Medusa. Currently redirects to Medusa. Opening discussion because of an ongoing dispute over whether this page should remain a redirect (see page history). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect. Paul August ☎ 03:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – No one has made a coherent argument for this to not be a redirect. Would be fine speedily closing this. — The Earwig ^talk 04:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close nominator is suggesting this to be kept and after checking the page history mentioned I found out that the party disputing the redirect has been indefinitely blocked meaning the dispute should be finished.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article at the Greek Wikipedia is el:Μέδουσα (μυθολογία), which translates to "Medusa (mythology)", and is exactly what Medusa is about (which is why they are interwiki-linked). As mentioned above, the user with the incomprehensible argument has been indef'd. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:00, 24 January 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 latter, keep former. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Indian → Native American name controversy#Redskin/Red Indian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Red Indians → Redskin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should definitely link to the same article, but I was wondering which one of these would be appropriate, if either. A (admittedly very brief) look through the pages which link to both seem to suggest that people are linking to Red Indian as an (outdated and offensive) term for Indigenous Americans, rather than the naming controversy itself. While I don't think the term should be used in Wikipedia's voice, I think that for people linking to the term (within quotations for example, in a limited manner as per WP:LWQ), link to Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Native Americans in the United States may be more helpful. Or maybe a disambiguation page. –Bangalamania (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget latter, keep former to Native American name controversy#Redskin/Red Indian, the naming controversy is the encyclopedic concept here. Generally articles for slurs don't redirect to articles on targets of the slurs, they go to discussion of the slur, and this should be no different. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget latter, keep former to Native American name controversy#Redskin/Red Indian per sound reasoning by Elliot321. BD2412 T 06:33, 27 January 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.