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) 01:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Radical Think Tank → Roger Hallam (activist)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. From reading the article, I'm assuming this refers to Radical Routes, in which case it 1) should not point at Roger Hallam and 2) is still too vague imo, there's other "radical" think tanks out there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination: too vague. – Sonicwave ^talk 22:40, 1 August 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. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sachimo → Louis Armstrong  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Dubious misspelling of Satchmo ("satchel-mouth"), a nickname for Louis Armstrong. Too similar to Sachima and Sachem (which has forms ending in -o) to be useful. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Very plausible phonetic misspelling. Steel1943 ( talk) 12:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  How is it phonetic? — the Man in Question (in question) 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • The "I" sound has the potential to happen quite often with "Satchmo". Steel1943 ( talk) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom & WP:XY as it appears to be a typo or phonetic spelling or whatnot for multiple things, but not the correct name of anything in Wikipedia. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WP:XY doesn't apply to this since it's not a grouped title that has multiple subjected within its title (such as Mickey & Minnie). Steel1943 ( talk) 19:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • WP:XY says nothing explicitly either way about whether it only applies to grouped titles (Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for., and people have been citing it for years in discussions about non-grouped titles (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli). Regards, 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  Comment from the author of XY, not specific to this redirect: The original intent behind XY was just about the sort of grouped titles Steel1943 refers to, though it's taken on a bit of a life of its own now. The principle of deleting anything that could just as easily point to X or to Y may be thought of as a corollary, and has been uncontroversially applied to redirects such as minor-league professional athletes who are mentioned in passing on multiple team articles but don't meet notability standards themselves. Sometimes this is applied a bit overzealously, though. -- BDD ( talk) 20:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. While not explicitly stated in WP:XY, I do think we have precedents of deleting redirects that equally plausible misspellings of multiple things and correct spellings of none. This falls into the same category of titles. Deryck C. 15:53, 9 August 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) 01:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Newtrogic High Zone → Knuckles' Chaotix  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment seems to be the name of a level there. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:GAMECRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:08, 4 August 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 delete by Fastily per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Political thought in ancient China → Legalism (Chinese philosophy)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Legalism was not the only school of political thought in ancient China (see, for example, Confucianism), and even it was, the general concept cannot be subsumed under one school that only emerged at a late point in ancient Chinese history.

The original author of the page, FourLights, redirected it in 2016 and reverted subsequent attempts to restore the original material. The reasoning given for the redirect ("I made this page. Material is transferred to Chinese Legalism page. Tidbits can be added to other pages.") was not sufficient given the inherent ambiguity of the source title. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 16:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy retarget to Political philosophy#Ancient China. -- BDD ( talk) 18:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Won't object to this solution as nom. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 23:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

(The discussion was closed at this point. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC))

• I made a successful request to have this restored at WP:REFUND. It was restored pointed to my suggested target. Though that seems the most likely outcome of a full discussion, I don't object to having this reopened. -- BDD ( talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ BDD: The way I look at this, given that my close was purely technical in nature, the redirect being "recreated" to point to a different target is akin to a brand new version of content being created at the title, making it ineligible for G4 speedy deletion. So, I see no controversy in your actions, and at this point, if this redirect needs to be discussed again, it can have a new WP:RFD discussion since it would be nominated for a different reason in the event it needs to be nominated again. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BDD and Steel1943: I probably jumped the gun a bit on re-creating the page, sorry—I don't mind having my own redirect G7'd in order to restore the history of the page if that works. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 01:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Nizolan: Given what I said, I don't believe that either deleting your edit or restoring the deleted edits are necessary. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:30, 1 August 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) 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• III Gates William Henry → Bill Gates  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• III Steinbrenner George Michael → George Steinbrenner  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]  Added with the relist. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• III Baker James Addison → James Baker  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]  Added with the relist. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Not a useful configuration of his or anyone else's name. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weird. Danny also created III Baker James Addison and III Steinbrenner George Michael in the same session. Couldn't find any others of this type. Not doing any harm, but rather difficult to imagine a use for these. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep (Not printworthy). All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  
• Delete. Pointless; nobody would ever actually search for him this way. Bearcat ( talk) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom & Bearcat. Keeping would create the false impression that such redirects are desirable or needed, so they aren't harmless. PC78 ( talk) 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. There isn't any use where the suffix is listed first for an entry. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 05:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as useless and implausable.   Nixinova   T   C  01:50, 1 August 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.