Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 12

April 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2023.

-mas

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 soft redirect to Wikt:-mas. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-mas → Mass (liturgy) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unhelpful, nonsensical. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to refer to the "-mas" suffix in English, which specifically originates from the Christian mass (the current target). There are some words that fit into this category, though the most obvious one is "Christmas". However, while originating from the word "mass", the suffix doesn't seem to specifically refer to it anymore, and so the redirect may not strictly be related to the topic and might be misleading. If it is kept, then it should be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry, however a deletion per WP:SSRT seems fine as well. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other words end with '-mas' without this part being related to the liturgical practice, see here. Veverve (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ending with "-mas" doesn't necessarily mean being suffixed with "-mas". Most of the words listed in the provided link, if not every single one, end with "-ma" in their singular form, with the "-s" plural ending added. While they end with "-mas", they do not use the "-mas" suffix. People searching for "-mas" would primarily search for the suffix in particular rather than just every single word ending with "-mas", similarly to how the -s article only points towards the two English endings that consist entirely of "-s", rather than all words or suffixes that end with "-s". Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 12:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete …what? Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect - clearly a wiktionary item. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if there is no consensus at the end of the day, but that most votes are not for keeping, the redirect should not be kept as is. What is to be done (as of now, either soft redirect or deletion) is up to the closer. Veverve (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically alternatives to deletion are preferred over deletion, so a no-consensus would likely mean the soft redirect, unless another alternative surfaces. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support that, though I usually support the “common reader’s likely response” option first, which is why I voted “delete” as confusing. Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect using {{wiktionary redirect|-mas}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Randi Moth. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:03, 17 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).

Vix Pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vix Pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit → Vix pervenit (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Made up title, no mention at the target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{R from long name}}, see [1] and [2] for source. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag per Presidentman. Skynxnex (talk) 13:51, 13 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).

Usury and Catholicism

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 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usury and Catholicism → Vix pervenit (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The topic is broader than this, and has likely seen significant development in the last three centuries. Therefore, the target is misleading. Furthermore, WP:REDYES, so that an article (like one exists for Judaism at Loans and interest in Judaism) can be created.
Thus, I propose deletion, Veverve (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weird reverse WP:COATRACK— projecting nonexistent content onto the closest match to the nonexistent content. Dronebogus (talk) 00:09, 15 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).

L∞

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 L-infinity. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L∞ → Lp space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ℓ∞ → Sequence space#ℓp spaces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

L-infinity seems like a more relevant target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong retarget both to L-infinity per nom. I think this is uncontroversial enough that you didn't need to bring this to RfD in the first place. Duckmather (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both. But now I'm wondering why L-infinity, Uniform norm, and Chebyshev distance are separate articles. Should they be merged? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 12 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).

Battle of Peshawar

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. wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Peshawar → Capture of Peshawar (1758) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no such battle named "Battle of Peshawar" which took place in 1758. However, "Capture of Peshawar" did take place which is the existing title of the article. "Battle of Peshawar" redirecting to Capture of Peshawar (1758) may confuse our readers who may get misled to believe that such a battle took place. Therefore, this redirection should better be deleted. Dympies (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move Battle of Peshawar (disambiguation) to this title, because there have actually been (at least?) three battles in Peshawar according to the disambiguation page. Duckmather (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what to do with Battle of Peshawar (1758)? Ponken (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Battle of Peshawar (1758) per WP:RFD#K4: it was the title of the article for 10 years and so it's very plausible that there will be internal or external links that point to it. Should be tagged from {{R from incorrect name}} as well. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move as proposed by Duckmather. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make a disambig page, as suggested by Duckmather, otherwise the redirect hides other BoP. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:46, 14 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).

Bare urls

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 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bare urls → Wikipedia:Bare URLs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Unnecessary WP:CNR – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Also who knows if such a term will come to be used outside WP. And even though at times I have wished I could find WP-editing info through mainspace. But then that should be implemented consistently throughout, possibly by bot. Ponken (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suprisingly, there does not seem to be any encyclopedic mention of this anywhere, and this doesn't seem useful enough to mandate a CNR. Interestingly, this seems to have been nominated by a sock of the creator... {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The only mention I can find in mainspace is at clean URL. Retargeting there doesn't seem helpful to readers since it only mentions the term without explaining what it means. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 04:55, 13 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).

Wikipedia:Obversion

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.

Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Obversion → User:Jaredscribe/Obversion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Dronebogus You moved the article to @Jaredscribe's userspace. It didn't appear to violate WP:NOESSAY. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But it violates WP:ATTACK for sure. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the essay you should MfD it Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and return to WP space: I don't see anything that can be even slightly construed as an attack. The essay merely proposes an alternative consensus process to WP:BRD. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake and got the namespace wrong on my first attempt. Larataguera (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I might be promoting deletion of the redirect so that I can move the essay back. Larataguera (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert pagemove per Larataguera. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article in User space and returned the essay to its original location. I don't understand why it was moved without discussing it with the page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 13 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).

Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired

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.

Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired → User:Jaredscribe/Competence is desired (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An attack page disguised as an essay used to insult other editors; redirect not needed and the userspace one should also be nuked. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MfD be thataway Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RKEEP#4. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved this article back to Draft space. This seems to be some sort of targeted campaign against the page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 13 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).

Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf

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 leaning towards "keep". There is at least no consensus that there's anything particularly wrong with the draft in the history under the redirect. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf → Wikipedia:WikiDwarf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:RDRAFT states that Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User attempted to overlay a humorous essay with an attack page; redirect doesn't need to remain and user is indeffed. Sometimes, rules should be broken. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is tantamount to grave-dancing. I don't really pay attention to the world of humor essays and have no idea what kinds of policies govern its content, but while it's a bit abrasive, it doesn't strike me as obviously disprutive (especially for humor, which often is rude), and it definitely doesn't rise to the level of an attack page. It's currently a redirect and not hurting anyone like that. Just leave it be. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give it a rest. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seems completely harmless. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:48, 19 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).

Wikipedia:Bold-refine

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.

Since the page move was reverted, this discussion is now moot. Anyone wishing to delete the essay may take it to MfD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bold-refine → User:Jaredscribe/Bold-refine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Dronebogus You moved the article to @Jaredscribe's userspace. It didn't appear to violate WP:NOESSAY. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

* Return to Wikipedia space: The essay had a few passages that were unnecessarily critical of established editors. I have removed those, and I don't see any reason to get rid of this essay. I was going to move it back myself, but I can't. Possibly because I made a mistake on my first attempt and got the namespace wrong. Larataguera (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I might actually be promoting deletion of the redirect so that I can move the essay back. Haha. Larataguera (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert pagemove per Larataguera. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was moved to an incorrect User page so I have returned it to its original location. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 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).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Anatoly Kvochur

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 23:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Anatoly Kvochur → Anatoly Kvochur (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/canonical-tag → Canonical link element (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers → Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Valasca → Valasca (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Siva Shankar Baba → Siva Shankar Baba (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Primary Balance → Government budget balance#Primary balance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Jason Hudson → Murder of Jason Hudson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Murder of Jason Hudson → Murder of Jason Hudson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Maung Maung Ta Haj → Maung Maung Ta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Janni Lee Simner → Janni Lee Simner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Cargo Hooks → Cargo hook (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~WP:COSTLY – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK. Duckmather (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom since the target is not an abandoned draft anymore. Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have boldly merged the rest of the abandoned draft nominations into this one. Although the page histories are a little more complicated in some cases (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/canonical-tag was moved to Draft:Canonical tag, then to Draft:Canonical link element, then to Canonical link element where it is today), I think most of the same reasoning should still apply. Duckmather (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – {{R from move}}s like so should be kept per K4. There's essentially no benefit in deleting these redirects, and deletion harms editors trying to work out the chain of moves that occurred. J947 † ^edits 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Notwithstanding the fact that the nominator was indef-blocked as a sock, these redirects are all costly and implausible, and have zero links from mainspace. I don't see how deleting them would harm editors following the series of moves. In fact, I would even say that deletion helps this tracking – deleted pages show all moves that involved their titles, whereas for actual pages it's only possible to see the moves which occurred after their creation (in most cases). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as useless. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:40, 14 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).

Blue Protocol

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 List of Bandai Namco video games#Blue Protocol. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Protocol → Bandai Namco Entertainment (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I want this page deleted because the redirect name is not mentioned in the target article. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Bandai Namco video games, where this video game is mentioned. (The game should get an anchor which the redirect points to while we're at it, since the list is so long.) Duckmather (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Bandai Namco video games#Blue Protocol per above. (I just added {{Visible anchor}}s for all entries in that list which don't have their articles.) 59.149.117.119 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:REDLINK. Redirects actively discourage new articles, and this one is mostly useless compared to the search function. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Bandai Namco video games#Blue Protocol with a WP:ANCHOR as it is mentioned there. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{subst:Rfd notice|Blue Protocol}} to the redirect. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per all of the above. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:59FB:4055:ED2A:981B (talk) 19:45, 16 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).

Fire Emblem 17

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 16:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Emblem 17 → Fire Emblem Engage (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target, see below. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It says it's the sequel to Fire Emblem: Three Houses, and that page says it's the 16th in the series. This is not a keep !vote for FE17 below, which could have other possible meanings. HotdogPi 19:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's generally considered the 17th in the series. The Fire Emblem series has always never been numbered officially, but it's a believable search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 13 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).

FE17

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19#FE17

Userspace draft

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. Arguments thus far show several editors in favor of keep or delete, respectively, with minimal prospect for reaching a consensus. Given that circumstance, and that the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, I think closing this discussion now without prejudice to future renomination is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace draft → Help:Userspace draft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~~Unneeded WP:XNR – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 12:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:STRIKESOCK Duckmather (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: unnecessary WP:CNR redirect. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm usually very cautious in how a redirect meant to help editors might affect readers who see it (i.e., mainspace–somewhere else XNRs), but the term userspace draft near-solely refers to wikis, and obviously that is near-solely Wikipedia. Searching in the wrong namespace is a very neweditor thing to do, as is creating a userspace draft. Hence, there've been pageviews. Not sure what unneeded or unnecessary means in this context, but I think the plusses outweigh the minuses here. J947 † ^edits 22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per J947, this is not a believable article name or search term besides this purpose, so it seems harmless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: fyi, proposer is a sock. – robertsky (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects across spaces are bad. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J947. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:43, 16 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).

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22#User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Masacalla

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 19#Masacalla