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. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• ELO LIVE AT WEMBLEY → Out of the Blue: Live at Wembley  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete as a very improbable, all-caps search target which has needlessly existed for eleven years. Maltrópa ( talk) 00:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. ELO Live at Wembley already exists to cover for that search. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Iceland-Indonesia relations → Foreign relations of Iceland  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Iceland–Indonesia relations → Foreign relations of Iceland  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Iceland-Iraq relations → Foreign relations of Iceland  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 18#Iceland–Yugoslavia relations and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 21#Iceland–Turkey relations. The rationale for deletion is due to the fact that relations between Iceland and the other country are not mentioned at either the target article, nor the respective foreign relations article of the other country. Therefore, someone searching this will not learn about relations between the given countries. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all per nom; no sources available to add the necessary information. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 06:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. No mention of these countries on the target page, nor mention of Iceland on the reciprocal pages. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 both. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Aserbaídsjan–Iceland relations → Foreign relations of Iceland  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Aserbaídsjan-Iceland relations → Foreign relations of Iceland  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete as a mixed language redirect. Aserbaídsjan is Icelandic for Azerbaijan, but the rest of the redirect is in English. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unnecessary. Zhangj1079 ( Saluton!) 23:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. However, as I still don't know which species are known as "spotted lady beetle" since that part of my relisting query went unanswered, I'm going to default to delete. Anybody who wishes to disambiguate may do so at their leisure. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Spotted lady beetle → Coleomegilla maculata  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Used to redirect from Coleomegilla maculata, but the main article was recently moved back to the species name because the article directly stated the common name spotted lady beetle was vague and shared with other species (i.e., 7-spotted lady beetle, 9-spotted, etc.) I don't see this broad of a term being a useful redirect for any particular species. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate. This is a common name (and therefore a very likely search term) that refers to multiple species (and so is ambiguous) - this is the entire point of disambiguation pages. Also, as a {{ R from move}} this will not be deleted without a very good reason - both to maintain attribution and not to break incoming links from outside Wikipedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate Common name is a likely search term, but not precise enough to redirect to a single species. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Dabify per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment. To answer Tavix, I'm still going to suggest delete over disambig. The search term is also imprecise in that there are multiple species with a common name "X spotted lady beetle" with number variants and sometimes other terms before spotted, but also some species that have spots, but have common names that would not fit under the disambig by name. The spotted lady beetle search term is going to be similar to green beetle to a degree. Someone likely finding a lady beetle with spots and using that term would find an overly broad disambig page or one missing potential species because they do not included spotted in the common name. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That sounds like we should have a set index instead of a disambiguation page then. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 English Revolution. Not much of a consensus, but with no one preferring the status quo something had to be done. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• British revolution → Revolution  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Britain is hardly mentioned at the target. Creating a disambiguation page might be a good idea. -- Nevé – selbert 08:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to English revolution as {{ R from incorrect name}} or disambig if there are other events in British history called revolutions that didn't effect just England ( Scottish revolution and Welsh revolution are redlinks, Irish revolution redirects to Irish revolutionary period but I don't know of that being referred to as a British revolution as it was against British rule. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Thryduulf. I'm seeing a few things about Boudica, and seeing other things such as multiple instances of Roman leaders of Britain like Magnus Maximus and Constantine III usurping power, but those two figures did what seems more like a power grab against an incompetent Rome than a British Revolution. There were a few internal uprisings and civil wars in Britain (see Jacobite uprisings and English Civil War) but no real country-wide "revolutions" outside of the aforementioned English Revolution. It seems through searches like this one using the words British Rebellion that Britain doesn't rebel against others; others always rebel against it. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Either disambig or delete no-one refers to the english revolution as a "british revolution" simple cause great Britain came into being just in 1707, so it can't be "british" by definition. This is as much non-sense as calling the french revolution a "european" revolution. Let's keep an eye on the dictionary to know what words mean for once. Appah Rao ( talk) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Here's a history book called " The British Revolution, 1629-60" that is challenging the previous Anglo-centric approach to the topic. An earlier one is " The History of the British Revolution of 1688-89" which instead focuses upon the Glorious Revolution. There have certainly been attempts to broaden the study of the 17th century and look at the full impact across the isles. Timrollpickering 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Beer festival. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Delete. Implausible misnomer and the word "brewfest" is mentioned nowhere on the page. 9 ³ 14:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Beer festival as more likely search target. There are several festivals that use the Brewfest or BrewFest name, but they are not related to each other. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Beer festival per Angus. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Beer festival per User:AngusWOOF. Seems to be a more plausible target. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Thryduulf ( talk) 13:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Spaking booth → spanking#spanking booth

Seems like such was a typo for spanking booth. Also redirects to a section that no longer exists. RightGot ( talk) 12:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete under G8: dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, together with Spanking booth. Mduvekot ( talk) 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 ( Saluton!) 00:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• BMC_Control-M → BMC_Software  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because it is appearing in Google results for phrase "Control-M" but the redirect target page has no content about the subject. Wattssw ( talk) 22:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is referenced mention of Control-M in the article: In 1999, BMC acquired the Israeli firm New Dimension Software, with its workload automation software CONTROL-M, for $673 million cash. Redirect was outcome of an AfD. Pavlor ( talk) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Just reiterating that this redirect is not helping anyone, is not useful, and is simply attracting confused traffic from search engines. Users would be better served by deleting the page entirely, not having a redirect. Wattssw ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Wattssw: I reitarete this redirect was an outcome of AfD closed not even a month (!) ago: [1] Now, I see it was you, who then nominated that article for deletion. You state on your own user page [2] you are an employee of BMC Software. I admit I´m puzzled, is this redirect somewhat harming to your employer? Pavlor ( talk) 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

{reply to|Pavlor}} No real harm, but the redirection on Wikipedia means that the result remains in Google and other search results for the product name. Meaning, a user will see "Control-M" as a search result, click it, and be taken to the BMC Wikipedia page. A better experience would be to have the redirect removed which would then remove the listing from search engines. Wattssw ( talk) 13:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note the underscore is not part of the redirect. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the outcome of the AfD which concluded that there was not enough information available to write an article and that redirecting it to where it is mentioned on the parent company's article will serve readers best. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Well, the nominator is correct that the redirect isn't very useful: a reader looking for information about this product will probably be disappointed to only find a little snippet of a sentence buried deep within the article. Couldn't that be expanded with more relevant content? – Uanfala 22:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Thryduulf ( talk) 13:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• MV Amaco Cadiz → Amoco Cadiz  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. It was a typo on creation. No history is lost. No language issues. I tried a speedy delete, but someone knew the rules better than I. Rhadow ( talk) 17:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Was never an MV titled ship. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Thryduulf ( talk) 12:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Maximilian I, Emperor of Brazil → Maximilian I of Mexico  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Deletion. This is a baffling redirect. Maximilian was never Emperor of Brazil, he was never considered for the role of Emperor of Brazil, and, more broadly, he had no relationship to Brazil whatsoever, aside from being a first cousin of the actual Emperor of Brazil. There is literally no reason for this redirect to exist. Nothing links to this redirect, which was created about four years ago with no rationale.

• Delete, as nominator john k ( talk) 02:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No reason for redirect to exist. Zhangj1079 ( Saluton!) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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