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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Tiscali International Network → GTT Communications  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

It is not clear from GTT Communications (or from Tiscali) why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Tiscali International Network should redirect to Tinet, which should be restored to this version [ [1]]. Otherwise, there's too much history that will get lost, and it's too much info to merge into the GTT article. Here's sourcing for what happened: [ [2]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I don't know if it makes sense to restore Tinet as an independent article. For now, I've added this former name of Tinet to the target article, which should address the nominator's concerns. I want to tag with {{ R avoided double redirect}}, but I don't know if we'd want a potential article on the older company to be at Tinet or Inteliquent or what. For that matter, why is Inteliquent its own article while Inteliquent, formerly known as Tinet also redirects to GTT? Forget GTT, someone pass the WP:TNT! -- BDD ( talk) 17:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Fackbook.com → Typosquatting  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

While this could be contrived as an example of typosquatting, it is not mentioned in the target article, and IMO is as likely to be an unintentional typo as it is an intentional search attempt for "fackbook.com". I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Even if we could find some WP:RS mentioning it, I don't think it's worth adding this kind of WP:EXAMPLEFARM fodder to any existing article anyway. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 13:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not in target, and no clear significance of this particular example that would prompt extra mentions or searches. ComplexRational ( talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. While {{ not a ballot}} was indeed necessary here, the "delete" voters obviously have the more policy-based arguments in addition to the numerical majority. I do not currently see a need to salt, since the redirect was only ever created once. -- BDD ( talk) 15:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Tim Petras → Kim Petras  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

This redirect violates Wikipedia's policy on Gender identity, which states that redirects of names pre-transition "should be kept as a re-direct if it is still a well-known name likely to be searched for by people unaware of the name change", which is not the case for Kim Petras, who was never famous under this name. source: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Common_name cave ( talk) 18:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt. Dead-naming leads to more real world violence for trans people. As she seems to have not been known much, or possibly at all under her former name. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 10:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep former name of the person and mentioned in article Dq209 ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  Where is it mentioned? -- BDD ( talk) 14:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Person was never publicly known by their dead name and redirect stats have essentially no hits aside from wiki editors BouncyLars ( talk) 15:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — BouncyLars ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete It has no encyclopedic value and should be changed. LoncharAleksandar ( talk) 16:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — LoncharAleksandar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete. Her former name is not mentioned in the article, and while it does appear in reliable sources (and on the Polish Wikipedia article about her), it never appears without the context of her current name. So it seems unlikely that this will be useful search term for anyone looking for the pop star. I don't think salting is needed unless this is recreated multiple times as there is a highschool athlete called Tim Petras who may become notable in the future. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The salt can be lifted once another person with that name has demonstrated notability and their article is written . Gleeanon409 ( talk) 12:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as deadname, neutral on salting -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Thryduulf. There are some cases in which redirects from deadnames can be useful, i.e. where the person in question was well-known under that name and the name is mentioned in the article; this is clearly not such a case. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - wasn't aware of renaming proposals (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 21:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Media coverage of Bernie Sanders → Media bias against Bernie Sanders  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This implies all media coverage was bias. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep it doesn't imply that. Also the article Media bias against Sanders might be renamed to this redirect title. See the ongoing RM.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 14:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per above. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 20:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• కత్తెర తెగులు → Scissor worm  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No affinity for Telugu Plantdrew ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• delete I don't know what that rationale is about, but I think that this title "కత్తెర తెగులు" is pretty useless, it would only be useful so that the creator could find out what happened to their page. Normally when patrolling new pages and I move a page I would leave the previous title unless there is a serious problem. However in this case the content was not worthwhile either as we already had an article. You had better let User talk:Sudhakarbira know about this, as that was the person who made it in the first place. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  The rational is WP:FORRED which is an essay that expands on what is covered at the either entry at WP:RFD#DELETE. It commonly cited in deletion discussions and usually not controversial.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 05:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:FORRED. On a related note, is "scissor worm" actually an alternative name for the fall armyworm? It is not mentioned at all in the article. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 00:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It seems to be some sort of synonym, if you search online for scissor worm it comes up with fall armyworm, even before I added the redirect. Though what happened here is likely a machine translation effect. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment are you sure about FORRED? Sri Lanka / Tamil Nadu and Telugu language seem related. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete per nom. The target is about a species with a worldwide distribution. Yes, it has apparently spread in recent years to Telugu-speaking Telangana, among many other places. No reason to have a redirect from the name in Telugu or any of the dozens of languages of the areas it's found in. – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don’t see the animal exiting in the region (one of many) as being culturally significant enough to warrant a foreign language redirect.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:FORRED. 180.183.71.245 ( talk) 03:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) LTA troll NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Iman Elman → Elman Ali Ahmed  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Elman Ali Ahmed, who does not seem to have been widely known as "Iman Elman", had a daughter, named "Iman Elman", who potentially measures up to GNG herself. I think it would be better for this to be a redlink, until an article on the young woman is ready for article space. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Shylock (2019 film) → Shylock (2020 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not a 2019 film, but 2020. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This was the title of the article from July 2019–November 2019, which tells me two things: 1) It was clear to the editors of the article that the film was to be released in 2019 or was a plausible-enough error to go undetected for that long. 2) There were several months for internal and external links to be established, and the redirect is currently keeping those links from being broken. The first helps those who may be using outdated sources that call it a 2019 film and the second helps those using the links established during this timeframe. Both of these things point towards keeping the redirect. If the redirect is incorrect, simply add {{ R from incorrect title}} to categorize it likewise. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Tavix. -- BDD ( talk) 18:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Unlikely search term for disambiguation page DannyS712 ( talk) 00:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-standard formatting of disambiguator, which creates the potential for the target to be misunderstood as some sort of disambiguation-related concept. – Uanfala (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Uanfala. I would assume that this is some method or style of disambiguating (sort of like how there are various citation styles) making it misleading. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as could be misleading. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 07:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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