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. (non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 01:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The redirect is from the IPA on the page. I'm guessing the creator misunderstood it for something in the native language. greyzxq ^talk 21:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Where else do you suggest it be redirected?
Enquire ( talk) 21:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I suggest it be deleted, the likelihood of anyone searching the IPA instead of the term itself is highly unlikely. greyzxq ^talk 22:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Greyzxq: I think many west coast First Nations use at least parts of the IPA for their orthography, making this slightly more plausible. I could be totally wrong about this, though. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 22:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per below. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep – googling gets us a Songhees nation website using the exact spelling here. A valid search term as such. (Interestingly, they seem to prefer lowercasing the initial letter, but that's irrelevant for this discussion as it's automatically capitalized here.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep – per User:Skarmory. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 20:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The web is as much about the threads of the web as it is the web pages themselves. Lək̓ʷəŋən is how the Songhees Nation describe themselves and so it is important to be able to find the relevant article from this word. Some would consider deletion of this redirect as an example of colonial attempts to erase First Nations culture and language. At a time when we are trying to achieve reconciliation with First Nations, it is important to be inclusive and respectful.
  

Enquire ( talk) 04:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep whether or not it's IPA doesn't matter in this case since it appears to be a very common way for people to refer to this subject based on a very quick Google, a few from the first page of results: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 01:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Music and politics. (non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Political song → Revolutionary song  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not all political ideas are about revolution. Protest song would be a better target but is still misleading e.g. conservative/anti-social movement songs would be political but not protest. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• retarget to Music_and_politics. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 02:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to music and politics. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 11:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I didn't realise Music and politics was an article, but it looks like a good target to me. — Bilorv ( talk) 09:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Microsoft 98 → Windows 98  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Microsoft Vista → Windows Vista  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Microsoft 10 → Windows 10  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Microsoft 11 → Windows 11  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Same reason redirects like Microsoft 95, Microsoft 2000, Microsoft 7, Microsoft 8, and Microsoft 8.1 were deleted: All are implausible redirects; I don't see anyone referring to a Windows version as a "Microsoft (version)". Colgatepony234 ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: harmless. I'l quote from my Disjointed thoughts on RfD and redirects: Likely search terms should be kept, and borderline cases should be kept too, as potentially helpful. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, these seem like they can be likely search terms. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep or make disambig pages if the multiple versioned products is a big enough concern. Windows is the most likely item to be searched with these terms. Redirects don't have a notability requirement. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 01:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Seeing how these four redirects exist, but the five in the red links got deleted doesn't feel consistent... should we have those recreated if this discussion ends in keep? At this point it feels like either delete these four, or recreate those five for consistency. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 03:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Note: three of those deletes were from 2014, three were speedy-deleted as late as 2018 (one was recreated a handful of times and kept getting speedy-deleted based on the prior RfD), previous RfD for 2 of these are noted above as keeps in 2015 and 2021. If we're keeping these consistency would say we should extend that to restoring all. Either way, maybe there should be some sort of "mass action" note on each for the group? - Darker Dreams ( talk) 12:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I’d support recreating them if this discussion ends in ‘keep’. IIRC from checking earlier, at least one of them was deleted previously at a RfD; but I’d argue that a ‘keep’ vote here would signal that consensus has changed. Best, ^user:A smart kitten _meow

• Keep and recreate (or undelete?): These seem like likely search terms, and they’re getting pageviews. I wouldn’t be opposed to disambiguating either, if the consensus tends that way. Best, ^user:A smart kitten _meow 12:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep and undelete the deleted ones. Not sure what the old RFD was thinking but I disagree with it - these seem plausible enough as redirects. SnowFire ( talk) 23:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 04:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Efectul Von Restorff → Von Restorff effect  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Romanian-language translation of article name, which has no connection to Romania ArcticSeeress ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom; WP:RLANG. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hindu language → Hindi  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Could also refer to the Sanskrit language used in Hindu texts like the Vedas Isla ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep with hatnote I think the misspelling is far more plausible than someone looking for Sanskrit, but a hatnote should be able to catch anyone looking for the latter. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 21:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Unimportant comment: Keep with hatnote??? But hatnote is being discussed as a redirect right above this discussion, and there hasn't been any argument to keep it... Kind of suspicious... Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Most likely to be a misspelling of Hindi. Rreagan007 ( talk) 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget with hatnote to Sanskrit. If someone wants to search for the "hindu language" referring to sanskrit, and they are redirected to hindi (against their choice) which has a hatnote "for the hindu language, follow this link", that is not great page design in my opinion. If I were the searcher in that situation, I feel I would be annoyed that my typo was redirected to an article I didn't want, with the actual article I correctly typed in being linked as a hatnote; it may feel like we "expect people to get the name wrong before we believe people intended to search for the hindu language".

I'm not an expert in this area so I'm not sure which is a more accurate description of "hindu language"; hindi or sanskrit. Whichever situation is the best description, I don't think we should treat this as a "typo of anything" because I feel seeking out the hindu language is a valid search term. So, whichever target is the more accurate "hindu language" should be the redirect target, with the other option being listed as a hatnote. My perspective is that sanskrit is more accurate for this task. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I doubt it would work, but could you set an anchor in an infobox? The "Languages" section of the infobox in Hindus seems like a good target, but there's no easy way to get readers there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Split the difference and target Hindi#History. - jc37 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Convert it into a disambiguation, by putting contents like "Hindu language" may refer to: (1) Hindustani languages, the predominant group of languages of Hindustan, (2) Sanskrit, the liturgical language of Hinduism, (3) Hindi, the most widely spoken language of Hindustan as well as among the Hindustani languages (even more than Urdu of Pakistan), (4) Any of the languages predominantly spoken by the Category:Hindu ethnic groups. -- Haoreima ( talk) 01:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Rreagan007, and for consistency with Hindu (language). No opinion on hatnoting - if some people interpret Sanskrit as the language of the Hindus, past or present, then why not? Hindustani is different, hence I don't support the disambiguations. Jay 💬 05:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, retarget, or disambiguate? I'm reading Haoreima's "keep" !vote as "disambiguate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 16:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• disambig or Keep with hatnote. Multiple competing "right answers" suggest a disambig page is the right answer, even if some answers are less right; the fact someone may think they are right makes disambig useful for navigation and surfacing information. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  This is not an ambiguous term within the context of disambiguation. If there was a book called "Hindu language" and a film called "Hindu language" and a company called "Hindu language", then you would have ambiguity. We don't disambiguate terms merely because they can refer to a family of concepts. It may be possible to create a WP:BROADCONCEPT article for Languages of Hinduism, comparable to our Biblical languages article. BD2412 T 19:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  I agree a broad concept article would be better. I would encourage anyone to write it if they have sufficient resources/references. Absent that, a disambig page maximizes people finding the existing information with minimal overhead. The desired broadconcept page can be developed at a later time if appropriate material is found. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  This would be a set index article, not a disambiguation page. WP:SETNOTDAB is of note. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 no consensus. There continues to be significant support for both deletion and keeping, with a minority in favor of redirecting to Listen to Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Bad XNR. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep given that this is Wikipedia jargon, is it conceivable that anyone will be expecting to land somewhere else? Polyamorph ( talk) 20:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment, this has come up two times previously, and was previously the stubbiest stub that stubbed. J947 † ^edits 01:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment do we have a list of Wikipedia jargons where this can point to? -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Doubt we have one in mainspace. I don't think the sources would exist for it either, unfortunately, but I haven't actually looked. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Listen to Wikipedia, an art project whose full title is "Hatnote: Listen to Wikipedia". Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 00:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support this retarget provided a hatnote (heh) is added pointing back to Wikipedia:Hatnote. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    • This would be acceptable to me Polyamorph ( talk) 11:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
      • I'm indifferent about meta-hatnotes. I feel that readers shouldn't be inundated with internal project cruft. On the other hand I enjoy the irony of a hatnote about hatnotes. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comment in the 2022 RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete with Hatnotes and Hat note as unnecessary Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete or ReTarget per Ivanvector. XNRs can be necessary at times, but in general, I think most editors know how to type WP: when searching for a project page. - jc37 19:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Listen to Wikipedia per Ivanvector and add hatnote per Lenticel. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 15:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep "Hatnote" is Wikipedia jargon that a newbie is likely to encounter and may be confused what it means, and the redirect points to the correct place to answer that question. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep (no opinion on target) because, if nothing else, this may qualify as an {{ R with history}}. (This may depend on the strictness of different editors’ interpretation of ‘substantive page history’, though.) ^user:A smart kitten _meow 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget while an article more about how Wikipedia works similar to Articles for deletion going to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, Listen to Wikipedia at least mentions the term. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep – viable XNR, unlikely to be searched outside a Wikipedia context, and Listen to Wikipedia is a partial-title match that I really do not find convincing as a target (probably worth a hatnote but not more than that). It also definitely gets use, with about 80 hits a month over the past year. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Redirects from mainspace to other namespaces are unideal. SWinxy ( talk) 05:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep or retarget with hatnote. "People can find" arguments against WP: space redirects or hatnotes assume experienced, educated, currently fresh users. New users or those who have taken breaks may well encounter WP jargon and not remember exactly how to get to the right WP-space article. Darker Dreams ( talk) 23:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3). (non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 01:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Bloodbenders → Avatar: The Last Airbender  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unhelpful: no mention at target. ( NPP action) Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 14:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ideally, this (and Bloodbending) would link to World of Avatar: The Last Airbender, but that makes no mention of it either. It's first appearance in the show is in the third season, so Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) is probably the best place to link to. ArcticSeeress ( talk) 15:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Bloodbender. ( Roundish ⋆ t) 12:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dia De Los Muertos (2014 film) → The Book of Life (2014 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The film uses Día de los Muertos as a backdrop, but it isn't mentioned as the name of the film anywhere on the page or any other language versions of Wikipedia. I cannot find this film being called Dia De Los Muertos anywhere on the internet. ArcticSeeress ( talk) 10:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Author of redirect, without comment, blanked this discussion notification, which by default is an agreeance to this request. This does not seem to be an alternate or non-english name of this film. Additionally, there is a non-notable 2014 short film with this name.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  It may just be a procedural matter, but surely all that removing a notice from your talk page signifies is that you’ve read it - not necessarily that you agree with it? Without comment from them, I don’t think it’s fair to assume Rcsprinter123 consents to the deletion. Best, ^user:A smart kitten _meow 20:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for ping. I don’t actually care either way, as this was created per a request at WP:AfC/R. Even if I did, my opinion as creator wouldn’t carry any extra weight or apply consent. Rcsprinter123 (confess) 12:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  Link to request. Unfortunately, there's not much more information there. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 01:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 20:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Flatulence. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Winde (medical symptom) → Abdominal pain  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The closest connection I can fathom is "Winde" = obsolete spelling of "Wind"; "Wind" = abdominal gas; abdominal gas = abdominal gas = abdominal pain. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a very unlikely search term. No evidence "Winde" was ever actually used to refer to abdominal pain. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to flatulence, which is the target of intestinal gas. Pain can be caused by gas but gas is a symptom in and of itself. Wiktionary indicates that "winde" is an obsolete spelling of "wind", as in "passing wind", i.e. passing gas. It's also a word for "to wind" (as in winding something up, winding a crank, etc.) in several Germanic languages, but that's not a medical symptom. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• 'Retarget to flatulence per Ivanvector. Duckmather ( talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to flatulence per Ivanvector. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:ImplausibleTypos → Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#R3. Implausible typos  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Odd CamelCase redirect created in 2017. Ironically enough, this is an implausible typo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep as a redirect that clearly points towards WP:Implausible typo which ironically happens to be semi-humorous. I foresee myself sleeping more soundly at night knowing there is an implausible camelCase typo in WP namespace that targets the CSD#R3 criteria for ImplausibleTypos. Brings a smile to my face... 🙂😉 Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) Weak keep: it's not totally implausible, and this is projectspace anyways so relatively few will ever see it. Duckmather ( talk) 04:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since both keep !votes are "weak".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• It’s a weak keep from me as well, per Utopes and Duckmather. Best, ^user:A smart kitten _meow 19:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Very weak keep. Does this hurt Wikipedia? Not in any significant way. Does it help Wikipedia? Almost certainly not, though I could see this potentially being used for examples (whether we'd ever need it for an example... probably not). The net gain? Extremely slightly positive, so my keep is equally small. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep the cost of this conversation, as trivial as that cost is, is still geater than the cost for this redirect existing. The cost for the delete record is not less than the cost for the redirect. The potential for adverse user impact from this redirect is likely zero. The potential value of this redirect existing, while trivial, is potentially non-zero. Benefit is greater than the cost. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 02:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a missing space isn't all that implausible . . . and afterwards retarget to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#R3. Recently created, implausible typos because of a section name change. ( Roundish ⋆ t) 12:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - it creates the shortcut WP:ImplausibleTypos, which is odd but someone might find it useful. It's not a {{ R from CamelCase}} though, it was created in 2017 (Wikipedia stopped using CamelCase for links in 2002). Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete as too implausible given the camel case. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I can see myself typing this, even if it probably needs some sleep deprivation to happen. Renerpho ( talk) 06:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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