File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete.
--BDD (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Listy }} → :List (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Listy&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2021-01-10&end=2021-02-08&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Listy stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Listy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Listy closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Listy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Listy closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Listy|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Listy closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- It should be there because it is a typo of "List" or "Lists", both of which redirect to the page. Globg 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, implausible typo. Listy is not more likely than Lista, Listb, Listc etc. Lennart97 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- :
Keep based on comment below. Not a very likely search term, but not necessarily implausible either, going by the wiktionary entry. Lennart97 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Wiktionary has a quoted entry which describes it as "Resembling or characteristic of a list, or tending to use lists", so this appears to be a rarely used word, not just a typo. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The redirect should not go to the current target and I don't think it's used enough to justify a soft redirect to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- One other reason why this article should be kept is because of the other redirect, Listy of films about 9/11, which redirects to the same article as List of films about 9/11. Since that one was approved, this should be, also. Globg 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- :By approved, do you mean "it exists" or "it was nominated at RfD and kept"? If the latter, it would be helpful if you can link to it. If the former, that's basically WP:WHATABOUTX and not a valid argument. And for what it's worth, while I've voted keep on this one based on the wiktionary definition, I'd definitely vote delete on Listy of films about 9/11. Lennart97 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- ::{{replyto|Lennart97|Globg}} Listy of films about 9/11 is currently at RfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Listy of films about 9/11. It was nominated by Hog Farm and at the time of writing this comment has received two !votes - Eureka Lott and 86.23.109.101 both recommend deletion. Accordingly it is definitely incorrect to say it is "approved". Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The OED defines listy as an obsolete adjective meaning "Pleasant, delightful. Also, pleased or willing to do something; hence, ready, quick." - Eureka Lott 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete changing my vote yet again, sorry. This time per Eureka Lott's comment, as list-related is apparently not the only definition/use of listy. (Maybe it would be good to add this second definition at wikt:listy?) Lennart97 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:*FWIW, that's the only definition of the term in the OED. It doesn't recognize the definition that's included in Wiktionary. - Eureka Lott 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
::*The definition at Wiktionary doesn't seem very well sourced (someone saying "I'm not a 'listy' type of person" one time in 1999 doesn't make this a word, plus even they use quotation marks around the term, which would indicate it's not in common use). The only source I can find using this definition is Wordnik, who have copied it directly from Wiktionary (they also list "strong; powerful" as a definition, from the Century Dictionary). I would propose deleting the redirect and also the Wiktionary entry, unless there is some better sourcing. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
: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.
