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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• William.A. Anderson → William Anderson (New Zealand politician)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Obvious punctuation error, was only at this title for about an hour so we don't need to worry about preserving links from outside of wikipedia. Hog Farm _Talk 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above: implausible/an unlikely search term and there is no need to preserve the history. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Airflow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Air flow management → Data center#Environmental control  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The phrase as worded isn't exclusive to data centers. This phrase could also refer to designing ventilation and air duct systems in buildings in general. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Airflow which has a management section. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ AngusWOOF: As far as I can tell, the Airflow article has no "Management" section? It has a " Measurement" section though ... which looks similar is spelling? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  ah, yeah, measurement section, but still dealing with airflow in general. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Airflow and tag as {{ r from related topic}}. Article explicitly refers to "managing airflow" (along synonymous terms like "regulates" and "control"). If someone feels this isn't enough of a mention, it would be easy to incorporate this exact phrase into the article without affecting the meaning. With its sections on "Control" and "Uses", if more content on this topic were added to Wikipedia that article would be the logical place to put said content. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Airflow and tag per above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• List of Blu-ray Disc devices → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of bluray players → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of blu-ray devices → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of bluray devices → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of blu-ray players → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Blu-ray devices → Blu-ray  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

While I understand redirects like Blu-ray player, these are misleading as the target does not contain a such a list. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Looks like the bottom five targeted the first redirect as it was an actual list at the time. The next edit turned the list into a redirect for the reason, Wikipedia is not a review site or something for people in-the-know; this section is heavily outdated and there are floods of BD players on the market now anyways. Still, this might be a {{ R with history}}. However, I should mention that there was a successful AfD in 2019 for List of HD DVD devices following the successful 2018 AfD for List of HD DVD releases. As for redirects 2-6, the most usage any of them has had is "List of bluray players" with just 313 views in almost eight years. (Currently leaning towards keeping the first and towards deleting the rest.) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 03:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I overlooked this the first time, but this edit from the Blu-ray article created the table that was later split off into "List of Blu-ray Disc devices" a few month later. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Why not. I'd be down with Super Goku's suggestion too. SWinxy ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is no such list. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's unanimous agreement to delete redirects #2-#6, but not yet a clear consensus for #1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete all, treating the first one as a soft delete allowing a REFUND to restore the blanked article. It seems there wasn't any actual merge so there is no reason to keep the history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Volvo Trucks. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Volvo F4 → Volvo S40  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect page makes no sense. Volvo F4 was a series of lorries 1975-86. Volvo S40 was a series of cars 1995-2012. There is no resemblance whatsoever. Glaucidium ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Volvo Trucks#Past products (with or without the page anchor). Skynxnex ( talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Volvo Trucks: It seems during early development it was called the F4, but never released under that name. Tartar Torte 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Volvo Trucks per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 consensus to rewrite as substitute only wrapper. I do not personally know how to actually carry out this change, and thus leave it to Frietjes or other interested editors to implement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Template:Großes Bild → Template:Wide image  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible foreign language redirect, I propose to delete per WP:RFFL Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• rewrite as a "sustitute only wrapper" like Template:Infobox mountain/Berg and others. Frietjes ( talk) 17:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Frietjes The redirect does not change the parameters though, these wrappers exist mostly for parameter translation AFAIK Aaron Liu ( talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  the auto-substitute feature would change the name and fix the "dir" parameter, for another example, see Template:Références. Frietjes ( talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment – There seems to be precedent to include these redirects on citation-related templates, see {{ Non-English citation templates}}, in order to assist the content translators. In that case, it seems useful to have a single template handle the translation of the argument names as to not have to look up their exact form after translation and whatnot. However, I don't see the discussed redirect being as useful since only the alt text is a named argument in this case, and it doesn't exist in the German Wikipedia. Randi Moth ( talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• rewrite per Frietjes. On German Wiki Vorlage:Großes Bild redirects to Vorlage:Panorama which is the equivalent of Template:Wide image. So, yes, it would makes sense for this one to be substituted by the latter. That would help editors importing the template by saving time. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless someone is willing to write a draft of the "rewrite" vote somewhere, as far as I'm concerned, those votes may "no consensus" this discussion. There cannot be an expectation that RFD closers know how to write templates. Relisting to allow more time for a potential resolution for the "rewrite" votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 02:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

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

I have not idea what this is supposed to mean. Veverve ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Looks like an Anglified spelling of Persian āryāī, meaning ' Aryan'. – Uanfala ( talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Aryan per Uanfala. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 16:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, there are several variations mentioned at Aryan but no Aryaee or āryāī. The Persian version is mentioned as ariya. However, if there is a reliable source, this can be kept regardless of a mention. Jay 💬 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  The ariya mentioned there is Old Persian, whereas āryāī is Modern Persian. Regardless, I'm not sure myself if retargeting to that article is a good idea. – Uanfala ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try again, given the most recent comment at the buzzer ...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Arguably there is a linguistic affinity to justify a foreign-language redirect, but then again I'm not convinced that affinity extends to modern Farsi.

Searching "Aryaee" on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar most results don't appear to be related to Zoroastrianism. More often than not it appears as the transcription of someone's name. Searching on Wikipedia produces similar results, that is, mentions of names. (eg. Barbad Award, Final Exam (2017 film)) None of the names I found pertain to people who presently have articles.

I lean towards delete to allow uninhibited searching, but my second preference would be retarget to Aryan rather than to retain the current target. The current target is more likely to suprise readers than to help them, judging by search results. – Scyrme ( talk) 12:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 2, no consensus on 1. Editors disagree on whether Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church is helpful due to its history, having considered other targets, but agree to delete the other spellings. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Outline of Heresies in Catholicism → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is not a WP:OUTLINE. I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Looking at the histories, evidently Outline of Heresies in Catholicism was created first, then moved to Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church amending the case and making it more consistent with other titles, then it was moved again to Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church to make it "more concise", and then finally merged (apparently after this discussion) with the current target of all these redirects.

Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church and delete the other two, as they no longer serve a purpose. Might also be worth including the draft-stage redirects in this discussion (I think they can also be safely deleted now too).

If content from the merge survives at the target then Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church needs to be kept to preserve the history. The only significant history pertaining to the other two is that they were moved, but this is redundantly recorded in the history of Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church along with a number of other moves (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Heresies in Catholicism, and Draft:Outline of Heresies in Catholicism), so nothing important would be lost by deleting them. Some old links buried in a few archives might be affected, but it might be better if the stopped working anyway since they're misleading (they imply that an outline article exists; it doesn't). – Scyrme ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Scyrme: What do you think about the discussion that followed the relist? Jay 💬 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Heresy in the Catholic Church is a prose article not an outline. ( Wikipedia:Outlines § What an outline is not) Redirecting from a format with a particular function to an article that doesn't have that function seems to me to be misleading and unhelpful. In this case "closest" to what the reader wants isn't good enough; that same rationale could be used to justify treating every prose article as an "outline" of its topic. It disrupts an intentional pattern and undermines reader expectations regarding what "outline of..." articles are and how they should be structured and used. Neither target is ideal, but a list article is closer in function than a prose article.

Additionally, the reason for keeping these is to preserve the history, but retargetting would break the connection between the history and the relevant destination. While a template could be placed on the talk page to note the connection, I don't think the case for retargetting is strong enough to break the direct connection. – Scyrme ( talk) 17:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church as a redirect with history. It is a reasonable redirect to a related topic. The other two are reasonable search terms as well. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep; even if not truly an outline, this is the closest to what a reader is looking for when searching this. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: what about the article Heresy in the Catholic Church? Veverve ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Veverve: Are you suggesting a retarget now? Jay 💬 10:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Jay: No, I was asking those users (re-ping: @ Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name:) why they believed a list of heresies declared as such by the Catholic Church was considered an outline, but not Heresy in the Catholic Church which is the article that details a Catholic vision of what a heresy is.

  I could accept a retarget to Heresy in the Catholic Church as a second choice. Veverve ( talk) 10:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  In that case, I change my vote to retarget per about. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I would also be OK with retargeting to Heresy in the Catholic Church. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Red-tailed hawk and An anonymous username, not my real name: Although neither is truly an "outline", isn't a list closer in function than a prose article? And why break the direct connection between the redirect and the article with which it was merged? – Scyrme ( talk) 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'm fine with either — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I too have no preference. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not convinced either proposed target is suitable - the search term "outline of" means one is clearly looking for an outline, not some other type of article, and thus a redirect to something else is more confusing that helpful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Pppery: To clarify, does your delete also apply to the redirect with substantial history or only to the two without said history? Or do you feel the history doesn't warrant preserving in this case? – Scyrme ( talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'm not convinced of the need to preserve history when the entire significant content was written by just two editors: The Transhumanist and Marikafragen * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The targets are not Outlines. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Phil Bale → Christian Bale  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Though "Philip" is Christian Bale's second middle name, it does not appear as though he ever by the name. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• We do have a stub about Philip Bale, but I have no idea if he ever went by Phil. - Eureka Lott 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dwayne Bowles → Dwayne Johnson  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Was never known as Dwayne Bowles. His father, Rocky Johnson, was born as Wayde Bowles but legally changed his name to Rocky Johnson (which was the moniker he went by) before Dwayne was born. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No details in any of his bios that he goes by this name.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Skynxnex ( talk) 23:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 per CSD G7. (Not quite what the participants were going for, thanks to an unexpected move by User:SIYAM SADIK SHOCHO, but the redirect's gone nevertheless.) ( non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Ora 7 Jon(2023 film) → Ora 7 Jon  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Counting the variation with a capital F for film, this is the third time this page has been re-created by a user. Based on the missing space between the title and the disambiguator, it's an improperly formatted title and unlikely search term. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete it was only at the title for around 7 minutes so I think R3 applies per WP:RDAB, will tag as such. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as temporary housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 ( WP:R3). Was speedy deleted per WP:R3 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) Tartar Torte 12:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dewaywala ڈیوے والا → Dewaywala  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Non-English lettering 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Re R3 deletion, I'm not sure how this is a misnomer? J947 † ^edits 08:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don't understand what you mean, I'm new to the RfD process. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Instant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Time location → Moment (time)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Obviously the target is incorrect at the moment (haha). Very weakly prefer a retarget to spacetime over deletion. J947 † ^edits 06:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Couldn't this also refer to a Time zone? Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Instant. Presumeably that was the intended target rather than a medieval measure of time. This would be helpful for someone looking for the temporal equivalent of a "location" in space (or " point in space"), so a point in time. (That latter phrase was a redirect to Time, but I've since retargetted it to Instant - my move edit summary has my rationale.) I don't agree that this is likely to refer to Time zone, unless someone can demonstrate that it has been used that way in some sources. Spacetime seems like a stretch. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to instant. I've also started a requested move at Talk:Moment (time), since I doubt the article with that title is the primary topic for the term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Instant, per others.

  Regards, Bassie f ( his talk page) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Timely moment → Moment (time)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

An unhelpful redirect as it stands, redirecting to a technical unit that bears no relation to this phrase. It has no coverage on Wikipedia or Wiktionary – thus delete. J947 † ^edits 05:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Timeliness and Timely redirects to Punctuality, but that doesn't work for this. There are number of uses of this phrase on Wikipedia, but none of those make good targets either; they are articles for biographies, songs, films, etc. not the general idea and I don't think any of those uses refer to punctuality. (As an aside, perhaps an RfD for Timeliness and Timely is warranted? I was surprised that they redirected to punctuality. They aren't always the same thing. I was expecting something like Kairos, but more general rather than specifically Greek.) – Scyrme ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 with a winter storm. (non-admin closure) {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Technical move request → Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete because it is too wordy to be used over WP:Technical moves and is the only redirect in singular form which is not usually used, making this an unlikely redirect. BhamBoi ( talk) 03:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I find it useful and note no reason to delete has been given in terms of WP:R#DELETE. Note also WP:R#KEEP reason 5. Andrewa ( talk) 03:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, seems reasonable. J947 † ^edits 04:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Seems reasonable and useful. Not seeing a good reason to deleted it. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see a reason to delete this one. Glades12 ( talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Snow keep Don't know if it's an unlikely redirect; I just ended up there today. DFlhb ( talk) 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Reasonable search term. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).