Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30

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. Note that per WP:R#DELETE #10, voting to create an article is essentially a vote to delete the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Charlotte Proudman → Online shaming#Senior solicitor, Alexander Carter-Silk and junior barrister, Charlotte Proudman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Meets deletion reason #3. The original section that the targeted redirect points to is gone, and now Proudman redirects to Online shaming, which has no mention of her name, coming off as weirdly malicious / not neutral out of context. Seems to be against WP:BLP policy since it is unsourced contentious material about a living person.

Although she is known for one event that some would consider "online shaming" and others would consider a "feminist debate", without context, it doesn't seem to be neutral. She was also found to not be notable in this AfD.

I know deletion discussions usually last at least 7 days, but there is no plausible redirect I can see, the page history does not seem to contain anything worth saving (the original redirect was to "Feminazi"), the redirect is similar to having unsourced contentious material about a WP:BLP, and there are only 5 wiki articles that mention her name at all: 2 for quote attributions, and 3 that are only in the references section. I'm not seeing how this redirect helps anyone trying to look up "Charlotte Proudman". I would tag for speedy delete G10, but I assume there are too many points of explanation/discussion needed. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Whisperjanes (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - seems like a straightforward BLP vio, leaving the user uncertain about her role/position w.r.t. online shaming. I agree it should be deleted as speedily as possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as not mentioned in the target article, and check whether there are other similar redirects to non-existent mentions which were in the large chunk of "Examplefarm" removed in this group of edits in April 2020. PamD 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as an article Her original blp was deleted on the ground of not notable and WP:ONEEVENT but she has since gone on to appear as a media commentator on women's rights for BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme, Channel 4 News, BBC News and writing for The Guardian.
  For reference this is the section within the other named "notable examples" section which the redirect used to link to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Vintage Feminist: I don't mind it being written as an article if she passes notability! However, this discussion is mostly for seeing if the redirect should stay, and there is currently no article to "restore" to in the edit history. If you're concerned, deleting the redirect technically has no negative effect on recreating/restoring the article. But until someone takes the time to write a new article, leaving up a redirect that could be potentially harmful to this person or a BLP violation is concerning, I think. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2020 (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 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• $19.95 → Psychological pricing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.95 I-82-I | TALK 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~ mazca ^talk 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as well. I can't imagine anyone coming to an online encyclopedia to look up "$19.95", but if they did, I don't think "Psychological pricing" is what they would really be looking for. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --BDD (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Helpfully, the disambiguation pages 99 cents—to which $0.99 and several other terms redirect—and 99p and have entries for Psychological pricing, although we don't have anything for 95c/95p. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, good. That probably works. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ambiguous, and this isn't enough of a particularly outstanding example of Psychological pricing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2020 (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 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• $19.99 → Psychological pricing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.99 I-82-I | TALK 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as above. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~ mazca ^talk 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that it is unlikely that anyone wanting to find out about psychological pricing would think this was the way to find it.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --BDD (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous, and this isn't enough of a particularly outstanding example of Psychological pricing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2020 (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 Religion in Nazi Germany without prejudice to further discussion of other targets, this one had only slightly more support. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany → Confessing Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. There was no generalized persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete, but possibly disambiguate. There was less persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany than there was of some other groups, but the nomination statement is wrong. Articles discussing the persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany include Religion in Nazi Germany, Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, and of course Confessing Church. We don't seem to have an article specific to Christian persecution in Nazi Germany, but readers looking for a discussion of this topic ought to be able to find something. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the IP's comments, either a disambiguation page or broad concept article would seem appropriate here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Write a BCA. Other relevant articles include German Evangelical Church and Kirchenkampf. Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that the relationship between Christian church and Nazi Germany is better covered by a possible "and" type article than under the title "Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany", which is misleading in implying that people were persecuted simply for being (any type of) Christian. Throughout Nazi Germany the vast majority of citizens were Christians, including Nazi supporters; there were Christian chaplains in the Wehrmacht and so forth. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's article on this titled "The German Churches and the Nazi State" [1] which is a more NPOV framing. (t · c) buidhe 12:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't object to a retarget to Religion in Nazi Germany for now, until we have a dedicated article on the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches. (t · c) buidhe 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best target out of the articles that we actually have. I don't object to a retarget to this article, though I continue to object to the possibility of deletion. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Religion in Nazi Germany for now, perhaps to section #National Socialist attitudes towards Christianity. A broad-concept article could well be a good idea, though I echo the concern of painting a picture of Christianity and Nazism as completely opposed, which belies reality. As such, that section gives a good overview of the whole picture. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Kirchenkampf#Nazi_persecution_of_the_Christian_churches for now. Srnec (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Religion in Nazi Germany until a suitable article under the redirect's name is developed. Some of the other targets suggested do not discuss persecution in detail, except for Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany. "Religion in..." is conceptually broad enough so it would be a reasonable target for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure why this exists since I never heard Ñ as Enne 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only connection between ñ and Enne I've found that doesn't originate from Wikipedia is this trademark but the search term for that would be "ñ enne" and it should lead to information about the trademark or the products it was used on (if either were notable, a 1 minute search suggests they aren't). Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is how the letter was presented in a Spanish class I once took. Redirect has 45 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination: it appears to be useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the letter name really spelled *enne in your so-called Spanish class? It is always spelled eñe. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Possibly an attempt to archaize the spelling of eñe. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish ñ is usually anglicised n or ny. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant that eñe is spelled to seem that the word belongs to a historical epoch long beyond living memory (ie archaized), which isn't. Old Spanish speakers may called this letter enen or en duplo. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Spanish 'Ñ' historically derives from a doubled 'N', so this uncommon spelling of the word "eñe" for the character 'Ñ' is at least plausible even if it's not especially common. Besides, English speakers often don't have an 'Ñ' on their keyboards and will use alternative searches to try and find their desired target. There's no value in making harder, nor in making a reasonable guess fail. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm all for keeping reasonable attempts to find articles, but I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that people are using "enne" as a search term for "Ñ" (or indeed anything in particular). Those few English speakers who know that "ñ" is historically derived from "nn" will already know about how to find the character (and even if they didn't, "nn" would be a more logical search term), and those that don't won't think to try it - they'll use "n~", "n with accent" or things like that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate The ñ connection is, IMO, reasonable but tenuous. We have articles on topics that are appropriately called Enne, however. I've drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per BDD's draft. The keep/delete argument as to whether its a used alternative spelling of "eñe" seems literally academic given there actually are other relevant pages involving the word Enne itself. Many of these including "ñ" seem like reasonable search terms if someone's looking up Enne. ~ mazca ^talk 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per BDD. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:34, 31 July 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Monkey Massacre Productions → The Duffer Brothers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user, Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past: 1, 2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sneaky Shark → Roberto Orci  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user, Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past: 1, 2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Manhattan Project (production company) → David Brown (producer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user, Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past: 1, 2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blue Tulip Productions → Jan de Bont  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user, Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past: 1, 2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Compari Entertainment → Robert Zemeckis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user, Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past: 1, 2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2020 (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 Wikipedia:RedWarn. Retarget has the majority in votes, and concerns that this will cause undo havoc with old links were addressed by editors arguing that 1) there aren't that many links and 2) a hatnote will clear up the confusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consider changing to WP:REDWARN; (Context: Redwarn is a fairly new counter-vandalism tool; initial discussion over this redirect came from a discussion over changing the edit summary to use something like RW to be less intimidating and more in line with Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG).) Pageviews look to be about 100 monthly with Researching Wikipedia, vs. closer to 2100 with Redwarn. None of the other pages linked in the hatnote right now look to be close enough and popular enough to justify the redirect. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of RW redirect I have no objection to retargetting to a more popular page, just make sure there is a see also hatnote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Checking what currently links to WP:RW, there are 43 pages that use this redirect. Of these 43, 1 out of 3 article talk pages are archived and 4 out of 15 pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and its associated talkspace are archives. The rest are in userspace. Retargeting to RedWarn shouldn't cause too much trouble, and WP:Researching Wikipedia could be given a new redirect like WP:RESEARCHWP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, keep the redirect as is and use another shortcut for RedWarn, like WP:REDW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as is; changing established shortcuts is harmful. Since the creation of WP:RedWarn the pageviews haven't changed altogether too much, indicating that RedWarn's existence isn't enough to use this shortcut. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my opinion to retarget to Wikipedia:RedWarn with hatnote per below. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We should always be very conservative when changing shortcut redirects as breaking old links and old references can be very harmful. In this case the shortcut has pointed to its current target since 2007, has a not insignificant number of links and a consistently large number of page views that haven't noticeably changed since creation of RedWarn. The small benefit of a slightly shorter shortcut will not outweigh the breaking of existing links and confusion added to old discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. There's already a hatnote at the current target linking to RedWarn. Please don't break links in old discussions. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab, as there are two popular topics. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, who makes a convincing case. I don't see the issue with retargeting so long as there is a hatnote in place. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issue apart from breaking links and introducing confusion and ambiguity to discussions (old and going forwards) where none currently exists you mean? I firmly disagree that the nominator has made a convincing case that any benefits from retargetting will outweigh all the harm it will cause. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's a good thing we have context...and hatnotes! I find it much more valuable as a convenient shortcut for a popular page over preserving a scattering of links for potential wiki-archeologists on an obscure topic (with thanks to LittlePuppers for demonstrating that). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of curiosity I just did a spot check of half a dozen random user and article talk pages - one was a link here, one was a link to Researching Wikipedia, and two each were typos to WP:EW and WP:RS. I can't say for sure that that's representative (although it could be, with the keys next to each other and 20 and 500k links to EW and RS, respectively), just thought I'd bring it up. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through in more detail (mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, and because there really aren't that many):
    • 9 to Researching Wikipedia (~5 from Piotrus above)
    • 9 to WP:RS
    • 5 to WP:EW ("revert warring" -- not entirely sure on 2 of these, but it seems to be the best fit)
    • 1 to WP:RM (somehow?)
    • 9 from shortcut indices
    • 4 from links to this discussion
    • 1 from Researching Wikipedia itself
    • 4 from this page, subpages, and transclusions
    • And that only adds up to 42 so evidently I missed one somewhere
  • LittlePuppers (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, changing to Keep as it is for now until RedWarn becomes more popular. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Half-strong keep I would like this to be redirected as it is, but it can have a high-medium chance of having some pages, articles, and companies with the same stuff. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: RedWarn isn't popular enough to justify retargeting an already established shortcut. If at any point RedWarn eclipses the current target, then it should be retargeted. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RedWarn has already eclipsed the current target in popularity. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. Striking my vote out. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget RW is a much more handy shortcut for the new tool than REDW or anything else. The edit summaries roaring "RedWarn" even for such edits like welcoming new users isn't a good thing for the community at large (not just for the tool or its users). The number of incoming links in archived discussions are quite few and can be fixed. SD0001 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed, links in edit summaries (which do not appear in "what links here") cannot be changed. If "RedWarn" is not appropriate to appear in edit summaries then the name of the tool should be changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed Is there any actual reason (apart from bureaucracy) why they shouldn't be changed? We're talking about just 16 links so changing them shouldn't be a big deal. links in edit summaries We have all of 40 links in pages. I would be greatly surprised if there were more than 3-4 such links in edit summaries. Again, not a big deal. SD0001 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget with hatnotes per Tavix. (I know, I'm sorry that I keep changing my !vote.) ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote support - this is a much better target than "Researching Wikipedia". Aasim 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Perhaps adding a hatnote would be useful. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion is clearly at no consensus now, though I suspect if I closed it as such, this would just come up again in a few months with a clear consensus to retarget. I don't know where that leaves us. If the concern is how "RedWarn" looks in edit summaries, though, couldn't it just be piped as RW? --BDD (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that a clear consensus to retarget will be automatic in a few months - my !vote certainly won't change unless there is an explosion of people actually using WP:RW clearly intending RedWarn. If the name of the tool is inappropriate or suboptimal then the correct solution is to rename the tool as there is no guarantee that people wont use the full name. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  At a glance, it seems like a very useful tool, but I had not heard of it before. My hunch that we'd have clear consensus in the future is based on the assumption that it will enjoy further uptake. Perhaps it won't. There's also probably a cart-and-horse problem here, in that I should hope there isn't an explosion of people using the redirect for RedWarn if that's not where it redirects. I agree with you that the editors who run this tool should consider changing a name if there's such a concern. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, while there's a good theoretical argument that old links shouldn't be broken without good reason, there just aren't that many links. Researching Wikipedia, by this shortcut, just doesn't seem to be used very much at all, and the increasing popularity of RedWarn just generally seems to make it a much more efficient use of a two-letter project shortcut, particularly as it's one that is far more likely to be used in edit summaries and other space-limited environments. ~ mazca ^talk 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Covert into a disambiguation page, which is usually the de facto "no consensus" result for "Wikipedia:"-namespace titles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Given Twinkle's similar popularity with RedWarn it seems that the long-term benefits of being able to write WP:RW for RedWarn outweighs the effects of breaking links. Eumat114 (Message) 07:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget long term benefits are higher than the costs, given the low number of incoming links. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 2 August 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing at the target named "Rincoln", doesn't seem like a particularly likely misspelling. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely nonsensical term, no reason for keeping this. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and hardly searched (generally for Lincoln). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:21, 31 July 2020 (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. Yep, my eyes deceived me: The target is different. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine → 2022 United States elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 27#2020 United States House of Representatives election in New Jersey. Renominating since the redirect was recreated after the WP:G7 deletion, and the rationale for deletion this redirect seems to still apply: "Not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure what use this redirect could serve. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation.". Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Pinging nominator of previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the difference between now and earlier is that now the redirect is pointing at a 2022 election article, rather than the article for Maine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 30 July 2020 (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 Amérique which now disambiguates this term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• L'Amérique → Yellow River (song)#Other versions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• L'Amerique → Yellow River (song)#Other versions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"L'Amérique" is just French for America, so it is a bit WP:ASTONISHing for it to redirect to a 1970s cover song. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a really weird one, because the current target relates to a French hit song - so is most likely to be used by French readers - but isn't the primary usage of "L'Amérique" in French. The French Wikipedia does have a brief article on the song, but it's very much a stub. fr:Amérique itself is about the continents (compare to our America, which redirects to the USA), while the primary usage of it with the L' - fr:L'Amérique - is, strangely enough, actually the French translation of Kafka's Amerika (novel). Their disambiguation page fr:Amérique (homonymie) lists a variety of translations of "America" that wouldn't be appropriate here per WP:FORRED, but also a ship and several creative works by various people, some that do have mentions here on en-wiki. My feeling is that redirecting this to a small disambiguation page at Amérique covering the uses of these that we do have any mentions of, plus links to the most obvious translation, is probably the best outcome. ~ mazca ^talk 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now created a disambiguation page at Amérique that covers most of these uses discussed here, I'd say these two should therefore be retargeted to Amérique and disambiguated there. ~ mazca ^talk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment L'Amérique is also a subdivision of Quart, Aosta Valley, a sculpture by Gilles Guérin, a French graphic novel based on Kafka's Amerika (novel), and another song by France Gall. The French term L'Amérique itself is discussed at Americas#French. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator I support creating a disambiguation at Amérique per Mazca, listing the uses of "Amérique" and "L'Amérique" in English, incorporating entries suggested by Mazca and the IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @King of Hearts: As there's general agreement so far, I've created that disambiguation page now. ~ mazca ^talk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (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 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure this meets the requirements of WP:FORRED. While Buddhism is the religion with which a majority of Sinhalese identify, Sinhalese is one of many languages associated with peoples who practice Buddhism. It isn't the sort of very specific connection I think would be required to satisfy WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that it doesn't meet requirements for WP:FORRED. No evidence it is in use, and an unlikely search/link target. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2020 (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 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Least-valued currency unit → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Least valued currency unit → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Least valuable currency → List of circulating currencies#Current least valued currency units  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Least Valuable Currency Unit → List of circulating currencies#Current least valued currency units  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Least valued currency → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Highest-valued currency unit → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Highest valued currency unit → List of circulating currencies#List of highest-valued currency units  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• High value currency → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Strongest Currency → List of circulating currencies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There was originally an article about the most and least valued currency units, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-valued currency unit closed with consensus to merge to List of circulating currencies. However the consensus of editors at that article was against indlucding that information so no merge ever happened and there is no information related to relative currency value at the target, nor have I found it anywhere else - Hyperinflation exists and is sort of relevant to the least valued currency unit but that is not the only posisble reason for a low-value currency and so would not make a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these were to go anywhere, they should go to Exchange rate or something similar. However, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion as trivia magnets. CMD (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about Exchange rate, but there is nothing there that talks about which currencies are strong or weak. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Exchange rate seems to be the best home for these redirects (if not themselves deleted). The original content of these articles was removed already as a part of the earlier re-direct discussion and not included in the target article, so there is no benefit to retaining a target of List of circulating currencies over Exchange rate. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2020 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BROTTR → Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling of the game's initialism, "BROTRR". IceWelder [✉] 09:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nice catch! X-Fi6 (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And in response, I have tagged the nominated redirect with {{Db-g7}} since you are its creator. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2020 (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 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 12.3 undecilion mph → Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not in the article given. "undecilion" is also a misspelling. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking online it appears to be the maximum speed the truck you control in the game can go when it reverses due a glitch. I’m don’t believe it’s needed since the article doesn’t mention this particular factoid.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not mentioned in the article, misspelled, an unlikely search term, and probably WP:OR. I don't even think the number is right, as floating-point numbers' maximum and minimum are very different in C++. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 1 August 2020 (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 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Duzy Rigs: Ponad W Road Racing → Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Highly unlikely typo, probably an 11-year-old joke. IceWelder [✉] 09:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even remotely a plausible misspelling.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (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 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sen:esepera → Esperantido#Sen:esepera  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on the article. I suggest deletion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a derivative of Esperantido, removed without explanation by the redirect creator in 2009 (Special:Diff/269485970) after being removed without explanation by another editor (Special:Diff/269012497). Make of that what you will, but I note that it is the nominator's job to provide this information to clarify the discussion for all participants – please undertake basic research into the subject before nominating it here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 08:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Aye, the inclusionist J947 appeared to hamper any RfD operations! However, there is no point on keeping this redirect, is it? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soumya-8974: there is no need to personalise the discussion - Comment on content, not the contributor. You should be doing research about the redirects before you nominate them (WP:BEFORE) and before you comment on nominations by others. Providing backgroudn information is not "hampering RfD operations" in any way shape or form. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know, but I was just sick with the user's inclusionist philosophy too much. Anyway, it does not need much research to nominate this redirect for deletion. Is this Esperantido mentioned on the article. If so, then quote me and I will happily withdraw the nomination. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My dear inclusionist @J947: The sen:espera is unisourced – not enough for GNG. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment serves solely to provide background information. I am not opining any option, merely saving time for future contributors to this discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soumya-8974,  J947 is a valuable participant at RfD and your snipes at them are not appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:49, 7 August 2020 (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 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019 global food crisis → COVID-19 pandemic–related famines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing (WP:R#DELETE) - linked article doesn't describe a global food crisis in 2019 (only locust-related famines in some regions). HaeB (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2020 (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 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Illegal" Rezident → Resident spy#Illegal resident  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Illegal "rezident" → Resident spy#Illegal resident  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible search term. Similar to a redirect deleted in January 2010. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 30 July 2020 (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. I do note that there has been some use of this term, but the use appears to be primarily polemical, rather than people seriously using this as their go-to name for the George Floyd protests _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• American Spring (2020–present) → George Floyd protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

...I don't get it, and I don't think any other readers would either. A lot more happened in America in spring 2020 than the target subject, and apparently, per the wording of the redirect, the target subject will be the primary/only event in all springs in America from 2020 to practically the end of time. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:MADEUP and vague. Isn't it now summer? Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Just wanted to mention that "Spring" in this sense is likely intended in more of a sense akin to the Arab Spring, although as far as I know, it isn't a commonly-used term anywhere. Master of Time (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert and Steel1943: Ping so you two are aware. Master of Time (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I can see the reference to the Arab Spring, but it doesn't actually seem to be a term that's been widely used, or necessarily be a particularly accurate comparison. ~ mazca ^talk 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have not heard this term yet. While the George Floyd Protests article seems to be expanding to include other items, I think it's fine for now and can go through the process of changing its name later.Fred (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2020 (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 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hong kong spring → 2019–20 Hong Kong protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For one, "spring" is not mentioned in the target article. Also, more happens in spring in Hong Kong than the protests of 2019–20. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think the intention of this redirect was to compare it to Arab Spring, but I have never seen anyone call it like that. OceanHok (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:MADEUP. (My first analogy was Prague Spring.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2020 (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 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisis in America → History of the United States (2008–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm pretty sure that crises in America are not exclusive to the time frame of the target, nor is the target only about a crisis. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in lack of a good target per nom, heh. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also Template:Crisis in America created by the same editor (and nommed at TfD). My favourite part is the Crisis in America heading linking to... History of the United States (2008–present). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There were occurrences in USA that could be described as crises in at least 1860-1861 and 1929, and there is more to America than USA. Narky Blert (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Yeah true, but alas, America targets where it targets... Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambiguous and not necessarily neutral. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RNEUTRAL... — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 08:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could just as easily refer to the Civil War or Civil Rights Movement.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Which crisis are we talking about? Regards, SONIC678 05:23, 31 July 2020 (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 Michael Anton. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flight 93 election → 2016 United States presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Huh? This term is mentioned no where in the target article. The number "93" isn't anywhere in the target article either (other than reference number [93].) Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. The term was coined by "Publius Decius Mus" in 2016 the Claremont Review of Books - link. That essay was commented on by several RS, including 1 The Atlantic, 2 Washington Post, 3 Vox.com, and 3 New York Times. IMO there's enough for an article on the essay and its reception, and no justification for the current redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Michael Anton, the essay's author. I agree that the essay could have its own article, but in the meantime, there's good information there. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2020 (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 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Martial law in germany → Nazi Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:��keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect (not the only period of history where martial-law-like regulations existed in Germany). By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page. HaeB (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as thoroughly misleading. Until almost the very end of the Nazi period, law in Germany was administered by civilian courts (including the notorious People's Court (Germany)). As the Russians entered Berlin, law broke down completely; but summary executions by death squads are not martial law. The Allies effectively imposed martial law after the capitulation of the Nazi regime until civil order was reestablished. Narky Blert (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (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 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Right-wing communism → Fascism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym. By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page. HaeB (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this thing-while some people might call communism "left-wing fascism," that seems to apply to a different topic, as described in its article. We have Left communism but not Right communism, one of the only plausible targets I could think of. Besides...have there been cases of stuff in right-wing politics that could be described as communist tendencies? Regards, SONIC678 04:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Paternalistic conservatism#Right-wing socialism. Some people in USA have difficulty in differentiating between socialism and communism. Narky Blert (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2020 (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 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Negative list → Negative list of foreign investment in China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are other meanings for Negative list. This This meaning is not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym.Wolfch (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The target page is not the base page or list of "negative lists". Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2020 (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 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump of Baseball → Rob Manfred  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the linked article (cf. WP:R#DELETE). HaeB (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused neologism. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:14, 30 July 2020 (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 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• L is real 2041 → Super Mario 64#Impact and legacy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelled redirect from an unlikely search term. Anyone searching for this (given the recent news) is likely to know that it's 2401, not 2041. O.N.R. ^(talk) 03:05, 30 July 2020 (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 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Simur and Mandel → Barbaria (East Africa)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

PRODed by Srnec, I contested on procedural grounds, but agree with their reasoning: There is no reason to link these two terms. Danski454 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this redirect has no reason to exist now, but for the record when I created the redirect it was mentioned by name in it's target, see Sesea (old revision). L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Srnec (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (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 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Money printer go brrr → Hyperinflation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not seeing how this is a likely search term. Do money printers freeze and get cold when they are printing a lot of money? I'd think it would be the opposite. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an Internet meme (Google the title). I don't know the implications for redirect status, so I won't comment on that. — Goszei (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia go brrr delete; pointless redirect without anything talking about the context of the phrase. brrrrrr –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redirect (not mentioned on the linked page), but it may be worth a standalone article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Perhaps @J4lambert: can provide insight as to the meaning (rationale) of the redirect?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the term is a meme, an explanation of it is available on Know Your Meme. Seagull123 Φ 12:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, as a second choice, redirect to "National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic" or similar. Most uses of this meme are positive: they're celebrating the idea that governments need to throw money at helping people and fixing the economy right now and explicitly mocking libertarians, gold bugs and Austrian economics-types who say it's going to cause hyperinflation. Having the link go to hyperinflation is a political statement which doesn't seem justified. Blythwood (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2020 (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 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Food Crisis → COVID-19 pandemic–related famines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not finding any sources that term the target subject as so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete highly ambiguous name, not used to refer to target subject. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambiguous, not s particularly logical search term. A scan of this user's talk page suggests they have a problem with creating bad redirects. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this term is ambiguous, it can refer to just about any famine in any time. Regards, SONIC678 13:22, 30 July 2020 (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.