Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

June 2[edit]

Jamie Jackson (actor)[edit]

There is no appropriate reason for this to redirect to a disambiguation page. This is better left as a redlink which indicates that an article needs to be created for the subject. It is deceptively misleading to redirect this to a disambiguation page. Dab pages are not articles, but are navigation tools to locate information about a subject. With this redirect, readers are mislead to think that the article exists. The editor EauZenCashHaveIt has been edit warring both over this redirect and the content of the disambiguation page. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Looking to clarify MOS:DABMENTION and Talk:James Jackson#Adding redlinks to disambiguation pages. olderwiser 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been a continuous discussion on a number of places for at least a couple of months. Several editors, like Willondon, conveyed that "encouragement to create articles" was needed back when the guideline was written, but that is no longer the case as there are far more articles on Wikipedia. There are also numerous amendments that suggest that redlinks do not belong on disambiguation pages to begin with, and that names should not be redlinked at all. Furthermore, there is an active draft that several editors, myself included, have been contributing to. There is nothing deceptive about a redirect to a page that actually says something about the actor (who is barely notable), rather than a redlink that deliberately points to nowhere. Bkonrad has been taking matters into his own hands, misusing his admin privileges to delete the redirect I created in order to appease everyone with the best temporary solution (I was initially against having Jackson anywhere because, as I mentioned earlier, he is non-notable) and to help Midas02 with the edit war that has gotten the best of us all. The redirect is far more helpful to the readers than a redlink. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've speedy deleted this. There should be no redirects to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meet Me in the Pale Moonlight[edit]

Completing RFD nomination for User:Littlecarmen who had previously nominated it at AfD. I don't have any opinion on whether this redirect is kept or deleted. The nominator's rationale is as follows:

The section this article redirects to doesn't exist anymore. The article doesn't mention unreleased songs anymore.

Pinging User:Another Believer and User:Crh23 who !voted on the AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. The redirect serves a purpose. People searching for the song name would benefit from being redirect to the article about the artist. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion", WP:RFD#D10 (WP:REDLINK). People searching for the song name do not benefit from winding up at an article that doesn't mention it, they benefit more from getting a redlink. Other Search Engines Exist if they want to find out who sung it; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 1[edit]

Wikipedia:Sam H. Harris (producer)[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely search term created through a move error. BDD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, WP:G6. This would fall under "deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". It looks like Steel1943 beat me to tagging it though. Tavix | Talk  18:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Great. I didn't realize that was spelled out as a G6 criterion. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2015 (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.

Li Lingwei (athlete)[edit]

I think this is more trouble than it's worth. So the target article is about a badminton player that has been deemed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. There's also Li Lingwei (javelin thrower), but no disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. This redirect was formerly the title of the javelin thrower. We could retarget there, since articles disambiguated with (athlete) are almost always about Athletics in the British sense. But since this was pointing to a disambiguation page that no longer exists, I think deletion will be the neatest solution. (The status quo is awkward but tenuously acceptable, since there's a hatnote and the badminton player could also be referred to as an athlete, in the American sense.) BDD (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per BDD and WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion". As a speaker of British English, I hadn't naturally thought of the American sense of athlete to mean sportsperson more generally than track-and-field. So, I hazard to guess, a British English speaker would get a WP:SURPRISE by thinking, oh, that must definitely be the javelin thrower, then find that not to be the case. I agree with BDD that we could retarget it, but there is no need to: Li Lingwei has the appropriate hatnote.
The discussion for moving to primary topic took place at Talk:Li Lingwei (badminton)Talk:Li Lingwei from 11 to 16 May 2015, so this is a relatively recent move. Si Trew (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

United States Senate Special Committee on the Eligibility of James Sheilds[edit]

The redirect not is mentioned in the target article. Also, this redirect did previously target the disambiguation page James Shields; the current target is the article that was recently displaced to move the disambiguation page to the base name/ambiguous title. I'm also not seeing this phrase in any of the other articles listed on the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: It might also be worth mentioning that the subject's surname is misspelled in the redirect's title (Shields vs. Sheilds). Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean not mentioned in the target article, right? --BDD (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Cameron Crowe Project[edit]

Outdated redirects, this project is no longer untitled. Tavix | Talk  15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as this redirect is no longer accurate. --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Back with 69% more lulz[edit]

I'm not seeing a significant enough use of this phrase to warrant a redirect to "LOL", especially since it isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix | Talk  14:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as a vague synonym. I can't find any works where it is a significantly a part of. Besides, it's approximately 31% too vague to be kept :P --Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Future Hong Kong Chief Executive elections[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and they're confusing because they are retargeting to the wrong year. Tavix | Talk  14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American Idol trivia[edit]

Delete as unhelpful; it alludes to a "trivia" section when there isn't one at that article (and there shoudn't be, per WP:HTRIVIA). It was redirected as a "merge" but there isn't anything from that article at American Idol so we don't have to worry about WP:MAD. Tavix | Talk  14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion". It's not an {{R to section}} (and as Tavix says there is no such section). Hits below noise level, no links within article space. The WP:MAD argument is interesting, because we had kinda the opposite conclusion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Qantas_Flight_Numbers recently, I forget what it was now, where I suggested there was no need to keep the redirect because the content had all been deleted from the merge destination, but that argument was rejected (not by Tavix). The same argument is now being used here Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed that. You can see a full explanation of my opinions in this subject at Wikipedia:Redirects for_discussion/Log/2015_April_14#Auroconf. I don't think it's necessary to rename the history, especially when it is renamed to something completely different. That makes it next-to-impossible to find the history that they are trying to preserve. Tavix | Talk  18:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I responded at the discussion for Qantas Flight Numbers with a proposal for a compromise. I think the same thing could be applied here as well. Tavix | Talk  19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Naperville Academy[edit]

I'm not seeing a school called "Naperville Academy" anywhere. Tavix | Talk  14:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • delete There was a school by this name in the mid-1800s but obviously the state is not an appropriate target for a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a lot more than that according to Naperville, Illinois#Education. It might be worth a retarget there, especially if we included the information about the 1800's school. Tavix | Talk  19:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Changed my opinion to "weak". Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Weak retarget per Tavix and Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
...But we're suggesting different targets... I'm offering Naperville, Illinois#Education and Steel1943 wants it at North Central College. Tavix | Talk  04:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I meant more the principle of the retarget rather than its particular target, but I think Tavix' Naperville, Illinois#Education is better. I'll try to get some content: if I do, I'll add it under the R, so as not to queer the pitch at this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

2013 Eminem Tour[edit]

Delete as confusing. According to Eminem#Tours, Eminem didn't have a 2013 tour. Tavix | Talk  14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia (from meta)[edit]

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 criterion R2 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

By mistake created in main name space Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (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.

Canal-22[edit]

Redundant to the more common redirect Canal 22 (same target). Raymie (tc) 06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redundancy isn't a reason to delete redirects. Unless it satisfies any criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE, it won't be deleted. However, since any channel 22 in Mexico is technically a "Canal 22", would it be better to retarget this to Channel 22 TV stations in Mexico? Tavix | Talk  14:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Would to me, Retarget both. I am not sure whether {{R from other language|es}} would be appropriate for these since they are proper names. Channel 22 is a DAB where this, and other countries' "real" and virtual Channel 22s, are listed, so perhaps that would be more appropriate? That being said, Mexico is the only country there that has Spanish as its official/main language, and I've added a "See also" crossreffing the two Mexican DAB pages. Si Trew (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing many uses for a redirect with an odd hyphen in it (indeed there was just one use of it). The other issue is that XEIMT is an exceptionally prominent national-level station, known as Canal 22 nationwide (it's available OTA in more than half of Mexico thanks to SPR, available on all cable and satellite providers) and around the world (like many Latin American broadcasters they market an international feed, known as Canal 22 Internacional). That said, I have added a hatnote to the target that should help; eswiki has something similar. Raymie (tc) 00:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget "canal-22" and "canal 22" to Channel 22 ; "canal" means "channel" in multiple Romance languages, of which multiple stations are listed. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk)
That's true, but we don't seem to have any articles or redirects for channels broadcasting in languages other than English or Spanish. The nearest I could find that could be is CIII-DT-22CIII-DT in Ontario, but that broadcasts solely in English, it seems. The French-language CIVB-DT is listed at Channel 22 TV stations in Canada, in turn listed at Channel 22, so all seems fine there. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Musica instrumentalis[edit]

Entirely implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @TheChampionMan1234: it's not a typo, it's Latin for "instrumental music" (according to my translator). Tavix | Talk  05:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Although your translator is correct as far as it goes, the historical usage of the Latin expression "musica instrumentalis" referred to practical music-making, as opposed to speculative theory. The redirect is at least dubious, but the only satisfactory solution would be to create an article explaining the term as found in writings of medieval and Renaissance music theorists, such as Ugolino of Forlì, Juan Bermudo, and Matthias Mercker.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl: I assumed there was more to it than that, thanks for the explanation! I think that would be a fascinating article, especially if there is a lot of information on the term. If you'd want to write the article, it would go a long way to clear up (and essentially end) this discussion... Tavix | Talk  14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@TheChampionMan1234: Redirects are used for more than typos. The assumption that a term, easily found in a google or google books search, that includes both "music" and "instrument" is a typo seems even more than entirely implausible. Hyacinth (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment why do you believe it is a typo? It isn't tagged as one -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Autostrada[edit]

This is the name for freeway in several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draft:Autostrada (disambiguation) has now been moved to Autostrada (disambiguation).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Autostrada (arbitrary break)[edit]

May 31[edit]

Wrong-doer[edit]

Vague. "Wrong" might also refer to breaking legal rules, not just divine rules. There are other redirects similar to this, like Wrongdoing. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is no easy way to find Wrongdoers (album) since we can't put a hatnote at Wrongdoers R, which may suggest a reasonable exception for a WP:TWODABS there instead of the R (with a redirect at Wrongdoers (disambiguation)). What a mess. @Mr. Guye:, would it be better to add these to the nom formally? Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Wrong, with the exception of Wrongdoers, which should either Retarget to Wrongdoers (album), or that article moved over it with a hatnote to Wrong. Si Trew (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to wrong/doer redirects to wrong ; the album can be hatnoted at "wrong" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that placing a hatnote to Wrongdoers (album) on the Wrong article is the best solution. Neelix (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced with that, I can see the merit having Wrongdoer and Wrongdoers going to the same place, but WP:SMALLDETAILS (section in WP:TITLE) and WP:PLURALPT allow and even mildly encourage them to differ, as far as I read them. Nothing links to Wrongdoers, so there's no problem with breaking existing (internal) links. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rep of ire[edit]

The abbreviation creates ambiguity. "Rep" could abbreviate a lot of things (representative, reputation) and "ire" is a word referring to anger. Is a recipe for a WP:SURPRISE disaster. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The official name of the country is "Ireland": "Republic of" is really more there as a DAB term, since Ireland is the geographical island, and I have no doubt long battles were fought over the naming of this (rather than, say, Ireland (state) or Ireland (country), which also exist as redirects to Republic of Ireland). WP:NOTDIC, we don't have abbreviations for everything like this. (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Jenkins (Y&R)[edit]

Redirect fails the standard naming conventions for television characters livelikemusic my talk page! 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Per this search, I am unable to immediately find any other redirects or titles that utilize the disambiguator "(Y&R)". Also, since Y&R is a disambiguation page, this disambiguator could be seen as ambiguous. However, I am "weak keep" since no other topics on the disambiguation page have and connection to a subject by the name of "Kyle Jenkins", as far as I can tell, meaning that the redirect itself is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This one, to me, just screams laziness. In my opinion, if it's going to be bracketed, it may as well have the full name of the show or not exist at all.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The term "Y&R" is ambiguous. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943. Dimadick: Y&R may be ambiguous, but combined with "Kyle Jenkins", it doesn't appear to be. Cebr1979: you say laziness, I say save the time of the reader. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CONCISE. @BDD:, why do you think having the reader type out the "(Y&R)" unnecessarily saves them time, when the target manages to be unambiguous without it? If anything, surely if using a search drop-down they then have to make the choice between what appear to be two topics but in fact is just one (depending on which search tool is used, some filter out redirects, I believe). There's no internal link in reader-facing space, and stats are well within bot noise level (20 in the last 90 days, excluding the peak when this discussion started). Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"Kyle Jenkins" is hardly an uncommon name, and it's not unreasonable for a reader to expect disambiguation to be necessary. From there, "Y&R" certainly saves time compared to "The Young and the Restless". Remember, the question is not whether this should be the title of the article—just whether it's a plausible search term and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't seem to have "(Y&R)" for any other characters though. Were it to be deleted, the name without it would be unambiguous. As it stands, "Kyle Jenkins" looks ambiguous depending on how one searches, but isn't: the redirect is laying false scent by making it look as if there is more than one topic about Kyle Jenkins. Because of that, I think it is confusing. Y&R itself is a DAB, so the disambiguator is apparently ambiguous! Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Steel1943 already pointed out about the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address[edit]

There's only one sentence about Van Buren's inaugural address at the target page, so this redirect is highly misleading. It was created with the full text of the address, but that belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. (It's there, in case you were wondering.) BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and redirect to Inauguration of Martin Van Buren. It is little more than a stub but seems more relevant to the search term than the bio article. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subpage redirect in the article namespace with no incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget (as nom) per Dimadick. The syntax makes this an unlikely search term, and the address isn't mentioned at the target article. But the Wikisource link is there, and at some point, the address itself should be discussed there too. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Inauguration of Martin Van Buren. The suggested retarget has a link to the Wikisource page and, though an unlikely search term in this format, having this appear in the search drop-down when someone enters Martin Van Buren looks very helpful to readers enabling them to find the information they are seeking. Just Chilling (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. As Steel1943 alluded to, this was created as a WP:SUBPAGE. This redirect is no longer useful because its intended purpose has been disabled and I don't find it a likely search term at all. I also find it interesting that the prose of Inauguration of Martin Van Buren doesn't mention his inaugural address, a reader could get confused into thinking that the article has information about the inaugural address when the only mention of it is in an external link. While I agree with most of Just Chilling's rationale, I differ in that I don't think it's necessary to use this redirect to do so, noting that Martin Van Buren 1837 presidential inauguration appears before this redirect in that dropdown menu and any combination of "Martin Van Buren" and "Inaugural address" brings up Inauguration of Martin Van Buren as one of the top results in the search engine. Tavix | Talk  18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Vincent[edit]

Delete. Target contains no information on Anthony Vincent. Incoming links refer to a Canadian diplomat with no obvious connection to YouTube. Tassedethe (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. We do have Tony Vincent, born Anthony Peter Strascina, but I don't know if he has ever been known as Anthony Vincent. Si Trew (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Since the target article doesn't discuss this youtube artist. I don't know if the guy's notable enough for an article yet although there are some articles on the net about his viral videos. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ADMASQ[edit]

I love this redirect (which I just learned of) however it occurs to me that WP:ADMASK might be an even clearer way to spell it, with the benefit that "mask" is a real word, and related to the root meaning that is at the heart of masquerade. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirects are cheap, so why not both? I just created WP:ADMASK.--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. How would you feel about me substituting WP:ADMASK as one of the three listed aliases on the target page? Or is that something I should I should take up on the talk page, there? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thepoliticsexpert[edit]

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 closed as WP:R2. Just Chilling (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from articlespace to usepage Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2015 (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.

Red Sux[edit]

Depends on what happens to WP:RFD#White Sux. - This should follow the outcome of that. Hits well below bot noise level (4 in the last 30 days). Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 30[edit]

Miss Maybelle[edit]

Delete. No links. A song by that title was recorded by some artists, not just Burnside. I don't know if they have similar lyrics. trespassers william (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:RFD#D10, could be expanded into an article (at least, a DAB), no content at target. A search shows most things link, one way or another, to the Carter Family and Maybelle Carter, (whose daughters presumably would be misses, at least for a while). Si Trew (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Herbert John Gladstone(the lib/lab pact), 1st Viscount Gladstone[edit]

Bizarre redirect, implausible search term. Had only 2 links, both of which i have now bypassed.[2][3] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Lauren Conrad series[edit]

Delete. This is an outdated redirect that referred to a series that never actually happened. Tavix | Talk  20:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Leika, Leyka, Leica[edit]

Even so, it seems to me that someone as idiotic as myself is far more likely to want Laika the first space dog than a small habitation in Greece, considering transliteration problems in general. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DAB it. Come to think of it though, there are some superb lenses under the Laika brand name aren't there? Has the Wikipedia search engine fallen asleep? Should I? I can't seem to find an article on them (but Google keeps getting in the way with this stupid new Wikipedia search thing even though I have set Wikipedia as my default, in theory.) Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's at Leica, which is a DAB. We need somehow to do this better. Not sure how yet. (C, for example, would be transliterated K in many languages other than English). I think this is a problem of transliteration and could be tied up better. I do realise this is the English Wikipedia, but English people may have Russian cameras. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably need some hatnotes at the target, at least. Leica (disambiguation) goes to Leica, the DAB, which it should in the standard way. But there is no hatnote or "See also" at its current target. Stats (87 for the R, 141 for the article, take off the 87 via the R leaves 54 for direct access) suggest this is not the target people are looking for but arrive there automatically. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This needs to link to a disambiguation page. There are other similarly named pages.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

British Kashmiri[edit]

"British Kashmiris" can be of Indian origin or Pakistani origin depending on from which side of Kashmir he belongs as term "Kashmir" is collectively used for both sides of Kashmir. But this page redirects to only "Kashmiris" from Pakistan administered region. There can be separate article on "British Kashmiris" which can include people from whole of Kashmir including both sides of India and Pakistan. For example Culture of Kashmir includes Kashmir of both sides. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. We are woefully inadequate on this subject even in the broadest general terms (I write as an "British white" according to my census return, since I am not allowed to call myself English on the last 2010return but I think on the 2010 United Kingom Census the Kashmir(i)s could choose one or the other – I haven't checked that yet) and we haven't British Kashmir. so that makes this rather WP:RFD#D5 Nonsense. If we haven't that as a WP:NOUN, we shouldn't have this as an adjective (and anyway the general form would be British Kashmiri people and, if it made sense which I doubt it would, British Kashmiri language, like we have English people and English language, and so on, as a general pattern, though I know other good eds here disagree that pattern must be obeyed slavishly). Perhaps WP:BIAS (redirects do not have to be unbiased) and I am leaning towards saying, well be bold and create the article then, but I think as a search term this is blocking the seach, amongst the other reasons (take note, User:WilyD) that I give above. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would accept that a redirect from a general to a specific case probably calls for red-linking to encourage creation here (or, if the Indian and Pakistani groups are too different, disambigging). If "White British" feels undignified for you, imagine how we "White Other"s feel. (Especially when we speak a dialect of English where "ethnicity" refers to your cultural/linguistic/religious group, not racial group). ;) WilyD 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WilyD, the terminology does not have any issue as three-quarters of the British Pakistanis hail from Azad Kashmir (Pakistani Kashmir) and the vast majority of sources use the term Kashmiri to refer to them. See the article British Pakistanis to refer to the sources. If it really was problematic, the sources would not be using that terminology for the community, which is obviously not the case. Mar4d (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, you created this redirect so your "Keep" is already considered. See talk page of British Pakistanis where I showed reality of sources where no source connects "British Kashmiris" exclusively with Pakistan. Moreover, Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has more Population than Pakistan administered Azad Kashmir. British Kashmiri should be general term which will include entire Kashmir, not just Pakistan administered Kashmir. If you say people from Azad Kashmir are more then it is not the reason, tomorrow people from Indian Jammu and Kashmir can increase.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 06:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What you are saying is unsourced. Read the sources again, there are 1 million people from Azad Kashmir living in the UK and they form the majority of the British Pakistani community. The number of migrants from Jammu and Kashmir in UK is insignificant and non-notable, whereas there is a huge and vast body of sources and books written on the British Pakistani Kashmiri community, and they have been living in the UK for three generations. If nearly all Kashmiris in the UK tend to be Azad Kashmir, obviously the coverage found on the subject will be skewed towards them. You are having difficult accepting this fact and obviously have not gone through the sources, while your attempt to make their reference to Kashmiris as controversial lacks any solid reasoning. Mar4d (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is unsourced. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. Mar4d (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename British Mirpuri community to British Kashmiris. It doesn't make a sense for a broader category "Kashmiri" to redirect to a narrower one "Mirpuri". It should be the other way around. I understand that British Mirpuri community only covers Mirpuris at the moment, but that can change once the scope is broadened. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I think you are right. If we rename that article to "British Kashmiris" then we can also add about "Indian British Kashmiris" to that article. I support you. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Human3015 is now canvassing for opinions [4] Mar4d (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    False alarm. Note that my vote and Human3015's acceptance of it here happened well before the note on my talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That I posted on his talk page after he voted here, and my main intention was to show your biased "redirects" to Kautilya, as we 3 are often get together at one article many times and we judge each other's NPOV, So I was just showing NPOV of Mar4d to Kautilya3. Nothing else. He was already voted here, see timings--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, Kautilya3 voted here on 8.42, and I posted on his talk page at 9.27 . Be clear.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is something I am misunderstanding, Kautilya wasn't involved in the redirect issue. Regardless, I am not sure what your intention was. It is just a gentle note that posting on talk pages of uninvolved editors can be taken as canvassing. Not just in this specific case, but generally. Anyway, Kautilya3, since we're discussing Kashmir redirects - I see you had reservations over Human's nomination of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I am assuming you must have noted the nomination of Indian occupied Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, this is not the issue here, I think we should talk relevant to this topic. Your one matter is already pending, you are not replying on talk page of British Pakistanis, we have to resolve that matter because after 2 days protection will over and I don't want another edit war, you have no points to tell there, first resolve that matter, admin RP is also now asking for source from you regarding Azad Kashmir is commonly known as Kashmir. But this is not issue here, you must reply on that talk page. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The community is widely referred as Kashmiri by the British media itself unfortunately Human2015 has made a habit of being a nuisance with regards to anything to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis. Excipient0 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/Rename Term "British Kashmiris" should includes Kashmiris from both sides. We can rename current Mirpuri Kashmiris article to "British Kashmiris" so we can add about Kashmiris of all regions living in Britain.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 04:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You have nominated the RfD. Your !vote does not count. Mar4d (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

White Sux[edit]

Somewhat insulting redirect that serves zero purpose. No links to it. Practically no pageviews (12 times in 90 days for this redirect, while the article it redirs to got 65088 views in the same time) and people who use this term to search for the Chicago White Sox definitely are familiar enough with baseball to find it either by its full name or one of the more appropriate redirects. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment: I've got a QWERTY. There's an I between the O and U. ;) Same for the AZERTY. Also not neighbours on the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hahah, that must prove that I touch type, or something (I've a QWERTZ)... it didn't occur to me actually to look at my keyboard. You're right of course. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Comment White socks is mentioned in Black fly in the lead as alternative common name for the black fly. Not mentioned beyond that, though. Quick google search shows me it is indeed sometimes used as a name for those flies, but whether it's more commonly used for the fly than the baseball team...would need to do some checking. Thanks for doing the templating on the other redirects! I've now added Chicago white socks as a {{R from other capitalization}}/{{R from other spelling}} to Chicago White Sox. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realised that just as I posted it. I don't know why my in-page search didn't find it the first time. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"White socks" should be a disambiguation page. white-socks is a different topic, as is Lockport White Socks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There is White Sox (disambiguation), which is hatnoted from Chicago White Sox (I've now hatnoted White Socks there now, too). I've added "Lockport White Sox" there to the dab, and marked Lockport White Sox as {{R from former name}}. I've also added white-socks in a new "See also" section.
To confirm, are you proposing a retarget for White socks ( → Chicago White Sox)? I don't think we need separate DABs for "socks" and "sox" – although Red socks (→ Red Socks) and Red Sox (disambiguation) are separate DABs – but for example, Philadelphia White Stockings is listed there even though they are not "sox": and actually I'd prefer to merge the two "Red" DABs but am awaiting the outcome of this one for "White" before proposing that, so we don't have essentially parallel discussions. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO, I think "white socks" should target a disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page (and the same with "white-socks") -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is now done. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
the various Red Stockings seem to be unavailable from the dab pages for red sox/socks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Khomeini returend to Iran[edit]

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 Deleted, via WP:CSD. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the misspelling in this redirect is just too implausible. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Viewed exactly 0 times in the last 90 days (although that seems a bit of an odd statistic since presumably at least the nominator viewed it? But the stats only go up to 24 May). WP:RFD#D8, implausible typo, and per that, I am going to take it CSD (created yesterday - but oddly, after your post, so perhaps it was deleted then recreated?) I've left a courtesy message at User talk:Rahpouyan110 suggesting that a WP:Piped link is better than creating redirects for this kind of thing. We also have Khomeini returned to IranRuhollah Khomeini's return to Iran, which although correctly spelled could perhaps also be deleted as an unlikely search term, or WP:RFD#D2 confusing, since there ismore than one Khomeni who may have returned to Iran. Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • When I found the page, it was on new page patrol as a just-created page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2015 (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.

Wujood-e-Laraib[edit]

Does it make sense to redirect a drama serial to a television network? Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • In my view it does! because that series, was on aired om Indus TV b/w 2004-2005. Any how i can't make an article on the serial right now, because i am busy with my graduation. And that's why i seldom visit wiki, now a days. Faizan Talk 15:41 May 30, 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10. It could be made into an article (as implied by User:Faizan, above), and it's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lin Sue Cooney[edit]

Subject of redirect is not discussed in target article. Subject of redirect is potentially a biography of a living person. However, based on notability requirements the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. While there is a short blurb from local sources and copy of one of those sources re-posted at the Huffington Post none of those sources could be seen as giving the subject significant coverage. Therefore, given that no actual article can be created out of the redirect, I propose that this redirect be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think she is notable enough to have her own stand-alone article and , quite obviously , I know many here will disagree. But she should at least be mentioned in the article. Honestly, I think Wikipedia is slowly becoming just another regular encyclopedia out there, when many, If not most, of us old-timers here were attracted to the fact that at Wikipedia we could go beyond that and not just educate about the super-notable (what was already out there) but on the "barely under super-notable" as well, thus making us more unique and "cool" than other encyclopedias. Antonio Master Bee Martin (haw haw) 05:19, 30 May, 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I original set up the redirect as the article was only sourced by the person's work website as a poor mans deletion. As the article doesn't met WP:GNG. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 29[edit]

Republic of Khalistan[edit]

This is not search term, even term "Khalistan" itself an outdated term. While there is no insurgency in either Pakistan side of Punjab or Indian side of Punjab asking for separate nation. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Unlike the redirect below, this is a proper term used by Khalistani separatists and has coverage in reliable sources [5] [6], and thousands of uses in books. It's a valid term. What's interesting is the user didn't give a policy-based reason for the nomination. Mar4d (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Genuine organisation that appears in scholarly sources. Being "outdated" is not an argument for deletion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the term is used in the target article.  sami  talk 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - mentioned at source, I don't see it meriting it's own article (and if it does, develop & spin is probably the right way). WilyD 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Balochistan[edit]

There is no such thing as the "Republic of Balochistan". No sources mention the concept. It fails verification. Mar4d (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a typical WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Also, unlike Republic of Khalistan, this term has zero sources. Mar4d (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
BBC used term "Baloch Republican" [7].--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It says the name of a group, Baloch Republican Party to be precise. Not Republic of Balochistan. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename Delete - "Baloch Republican Party," which is a genuine organisation mentioned on the page already has its own page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    Right now it's a redirect to Balochistan conflict. Baloch Republican Army on the other hand is a splinter group and currently redirects to Baloch nationalism. There are probably enough sources which can merit a separate article for Baloch Republican Army. But I do not see any sources so far showing that this group uses "Republic of Balochistan". Unless that is established, it would be WP:OR. Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yup, good point. I didn't check the other page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.  sami  talk 22:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

C Intermediate Language[edit]

This was merged into C (programming language last year. As was feared in that discussion all references to CIL have been removed (and I just removed a new addition). The merge was inappropriate, as CIL is not really a proper subject for the C article. CIL is approximately a simplified form of C used in tools used to analyze and process C programs - it has little relevance to the language itself. Just as say a discussion of Strength reduction, and important technique used by most C compilers, is not relevant to the C article. The redirect should be removed. CIL, as a separate article, is not unreasonable, so perhaps we should just revert to the 17-May-2013 version (although that is pretty stubby). It would not be unreasonable to link to CIL as a related language from the C page, although I'm not sure it's sufficiently notable to justify that. Rwessel (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I used Twinkle to add this RfD, and it has broken the automatic redirect. I'm not sure if that's by design or something that should be fixed. There is still a link to C (programming language) there. Rwessel (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Apparently correct as is. Rwessel (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would not reverting to the last pre-merge/redirect version satisfy the requirement to keep history? Again, my primary issue is that this is *not* an appropriate redirect to the C article. Rwessel (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Restore pre-merge version. Yes, that would seem a sensible thing to do, if the content that was merged has been deleted from the C article. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore: CIL should be restored into a separate article, no matter how "stubby" it might be. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Future Eurovision Song Contests[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.These redirects aren't helpful because there isn't any information about these contests at the Eurovision Song Contest article (the only future contest mentioned is 2016). Someone searching for this would be looking for information about these specific contests and by keeping them we are confusing these people and/or giving them false hope. Tavix | Talk  16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete Useless redirectsDavid C 16:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talkcontribs)

KeepCreation Protect although I am now undecided on whether to keep or delete: From what I seem to recall, a reasonable length of future contests were created as redirects due to the fact eager Eurovision-fans, most of which come to Wikipedia as unregistered IP's (but some registered user's), were known to create articles for these in a speculative vandalistic manner - see diff 1, diff 2, and diff 3. However, I thought all of the future articles were creation protected? Would doing so on these not protect them better from premature creations? Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • At this time, an IP can edit the redirect and turn it into an article. In order to create an article from a redlink, you'd have to be a registered user. From this fact alone, a redlink is better because it prevents anonymous users from creating the article. If you think this is is a big enough problem, an admin can WP:SALT them, but I don't think this is the proper venue to discuss that. Also, the diffs you provide show that it doesn't matter whether it is a redirect or not, the article was still created. Tavix | Talk  17:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete No need for 13 years of redirects, I'd rather the pages were deleted if that meant IPs were prevented from creating them. -- [[ axg //  ]] 18:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely keep – these will have to be created down the track anyway. If someone is looking for information about a future contest, that information is found on Eurovision Song Contest, so the redirects should be kept. – Hshook (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete Definitely too soon for all of these. Many other yearly/periodic events like the Eurovision Song Contest have had articles prematurely made and deleted. This isn't the discussion to WP:SALT the pages, yes, but we cross that bridge when we get there nonetheless. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 20:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete – I created some future "Eurovision YYYY" re-directs solely because the equivalent "Eurovision Song Contest YYYY" ones existed, though I'm actually not too fussed on the issue. They can be re-created/undeleted when the time is right. CT Cooper · talk 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete – These redirects spawn unnecessary confusion about the song contests, since people might assume that their happening is confirmed if they're already on Wikipedia. When the time is right, it will just be one mouseclick and the page is back. Rayukk (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Football (A)[edit]

This could refer to Association football, American football, or Australian football. Due to its vagueness, I don't think it is helpful as a redirect to any of these sports. Also, I don't think it is a plausible search term so it's not worth a retarget to Football (disambiguation). Tavix | Talk  15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @65.94.43.89: The nominator didn't suggest retargeting anything. Please clarify. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Retarget to the disambiguation page, per nominator's comment about multiple "A" footballs, which all appear at the disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe this should target to A-League? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Qantas Flight Numbers[edit]

There is nothing about specific flight numbers in the target article, (apart from ones that have been involved in incidents) and I don't think that there is any need in adding any information about them, retargeting to the incidents section certainly does not help. - TheChampionMan1234 01:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - this is a former article whose content was merged into the target. Even though it has long since gone it is there in the history so this page needs to be retained in some form for attribution purposes. Just Chilling (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have some articles about specific flights number (generally "incidents"), and we could convert it to a DAB with entries for:
The merge happened way back on 12 May 2006 with this edit at Quantas and this one at Quantas Flight Numbers, by @Kungfuadam: I'm not sure we need attribution in a circumstance such as this when the content has been deleted. Sure, it's in historical versions of the page, but someone can always ask for the page to be recovered for the purposes of checking the attribution, so that does not rule out a delete. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Flight 7 & 8 is redlinked because you spelled "Qantas" wrong. See: Qantas Flight 7 and Qantas Flight 8. Tavix | Talk  19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. If there were something saying how flight numbers were chosen, allocated, their history etc then fine, but just to enumerate them is not helpful. I don't see how attribution is a problem if the redirect were deleted: any historical version can be retrieved if need be. Otherwise we could never delete anything that had ever been linked to. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope! "... if the redirect were deleted: any historical version can be retrieved if need be." This is simply wrong; if the undelete tool is required to see the history then attribution has not been preserved. The content was merged here. We never delete outright former articles that have had content merged elsewhere because it would break the attribution chain and contravene our CC Licence. If a redirect, that was a former article, is considered harmful then there are other mechanisms to preserve the history such as move to a sub-page of the target's talk page with a link from the talk page or deletion after a history merge. Just Chilling (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but since the content is not at the target (in its current version) it does seem rather an edge case. I imagine this technicality gets contravened all the time, then, with cut-and-paste moves and so on. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename to Qantas airline to preserve history at a plausible redirect name, then delete the resulting history-less redirect at Qantas flight numbers. Problem solved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete it per nom and Si. Per WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history: "history preservation is no longer strictly required, so long as all of the article authors are included." The easiest solution is to create a new section at Talk:Qantas stating that material from Qantas Flight Numbers was merged here but no longer constitutes any part of the article. List the users that contributed to that article, and maybe include a link to that section of WP:MAD. I don't like renaming redirects to preserve history because it makes it impossible to find the history in the future, especially since it's unnecessary. Tavix | Talk  18:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

List of months by year: 1900-1999[edit]

Useless redirects. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete the last three as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, since the target is simply "2000s" and not the date range indicated by the redirects' titles. More Neutral on the first one at the moment. With respect, I've added the section links in the nomination above (I know Twinkle doesn't do that) for clarity. I note the difference between the last two is a hyphen versus an en dash. The first one actually was supposedly nominated for deletion way back in 2005 but that talk page was only added (by User:AnomieBOT) on 1 January 2014 so not sure what's going on there. The third and fourth ones also seem to have consensus on their talk pages (with a very small quorum), from 1 January 2014, that they should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked the last three with {{Rfd}} notices, and added {{R to section}} to them. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hafsa Sultan[edit]

The situation is completely similar with my previous request below. These women were also sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. They also had different mothers. One of these sultanas was the wife of a minister (Şehzade) and the other one died at a very young age (Hafsa). A user moved Hafsa Sultan to Şehzade Sultan and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Şehzade Sultan and caused this problem. I think this redirect should also become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What's with the cedilla on the S (if that is the right name for it)? That's not English. So if you are going to move it, do it properly. I'd be inclined just to Revert it back to where it was. Sezhade Sultan, without the cedilla, is red: but if we keep it should be created as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: The cedilla on the S is completely normal. It's a Turkish name and it should be written in that way. Even the names of Turkish actors and political figures are written like this in English Wikipedia. However, I'm not here to discuss about Turkish alphabet. Actually I see no reason for keeping Hafsa Sultan, but if you think it should be kept, then it should redirect to one of her parents' pages. Unfortunately there's nothing about her in Selim I and Ayşe Hafsa Sultan's article. So keeping this redirect page has no meaning. Keivan.fTalk 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: thanks for explaining that. As far as I remember, and I am just going off the top of my head, Attaturk changed the Turkish Alphabet from Arabic to the Latin Alphabet in 1922, which must have been a bit of a surprise, but it is useful to remember that: I had never seen this little lodge before. I agree with you it should go Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and perhaps WP:NOTENGLISH but that is more the target than the redirect. I doubt an English-speaing user on an English keyboard could possibly type the target, but the redirect itself doesn't have any diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: About the target, I don't see that much problem. When I search "Sehzade Sultan", I get the result. Try and you'll see. Actually, I don't agree with changing the formats and ways of writing Turkish names. Many Turkish names have such Latin letters. For example Kıvanç Karakaş, Bülent İplikçioğlu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,..... For more examples see Turkish people's category. Almost all of their names have such Latin letters. But when you search these names without those letters, you'll get the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keivan.f (talkcontribs) 14:03, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Yes, I agree in principle. Our job here at RfD is to help people get to where they want to go. Sometimes that means a delete because the redirect gets in the way of the search engine and people end up in the wrong place. But if not, it tends to be kept as harmless, however few hits it gets. Kivanc Karakas exists but not Recep Tayyyip Erdogan nor Bulent Iplikcioglue. I think that it is pretty standard procedure to create the {{R from title without diacritics}} (I do it if I create a translation from French which has an accent, for example), but don't want to do so before we get consensus here about what we do with these, as that's just making more work for each other. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I just wanted to mention that Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Bulent Iplikcioglu both exist. You made a mistake when typing them. Keivan.fTalk 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I did try searching, by the way. I am nothing if not thorough, as most here will tell you, and yes, i got that result. The problem is there are lots of different ways of searching and we don't want an R to "block" the search, that is a difficult call to make because we don't know what the search would do without it but have to guess. Fun, isn't it! Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As with below, this should be reverted to the status quo ante. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I think this article's situation is different from the one below. When this one was moved from Hafsa to Sehzade its material also changed. But Hatice Sultan was moved to Fatma Sultan without any changes in the article. I think Hafsa's page should become restored if she was notable and if she wasn't it should become deleted. I also think we should keep Sehzade Sultan's article. Keivan.fTalk 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That would probably call for a histmerge then... --BDD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not sure the status quo ante is much good, though, (you mean, "what it was before", I presume: we have an article status quo ante bellum which i have not checked but what I would translate as "what it was like before the war"). The thing is we need to set an obiter dictaobiter dictum on these things so they are not created unnecessaily. R's are cheap, sure, but the problem is they hurt people trying to search for information: that's our job isn't it? Et in arcadia ego. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's translated at that article as "The state existing before the war", but I think mine is more colloquial. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Aciram: - Are you able to help us sort this out? Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of letting this rot in the old logs or closing this as no consensus, I'd like to see a fresh set of eyes on this discussion. I've informed WP:OTTOMAN and WP:TURKEY about these two discussions and hopefully they can help us reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Sorry, I am confused by the discussion that occurred above. Though, what I see in the article is someone arbitrarily referred to as "Hafsa" without explanation of their relation to the subject. They might be the sister of the subject or maybe even the subject herself. There might be a connection, but it is not very clear. The article should receive some cleaning up here, including potentially removing mentions of "Hafsa", and subsequently deleting this redirect here. It's confusing to me and confusing to the readers. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[edit]

Recently, I realized that Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) redirects to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). Actually they were sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. Even their mothers were two different persons One of these princesses was the wife of a prime minister (Fatma) and the other one died at a very young age (Hatice). A user moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). I think this redirect should become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that, thanks for it. I was unaware of that template, but the more specific the better. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
But I think it's harmful. Imagine Prince John of the United Kingdom redirected to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. It really makes people confused. When I searched Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and except that I found an article about Fatma Sultan I got confused. Hatice Sultan should redirect to one of her parents' page not her sister's. I was thinking about creating a new article for Hatice and for doing that, these two pages should become separated. Keivan.fTalk 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you create the page, presumably as a {{bio-stub}}, it will soon be closed here as a procedural close as an R converted to an article, and I very much encourage you to do so. I haven't the knowledge to do it myself, but have done so in the past on engineering topics, and I think one was closed yesterday in the same way. That's just making the encyclopaedia better. If I can help with any copy editing etc please let me know. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Thanks. If I need your help, I'll tell you. But the problem about Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) is that she was only one year old when she died. Thus no special and important information can be found for her. I think like Hafsa Sultan, we should delete this one too. Keivan.fTalk 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then surely this goes Delete under WP:N, not notable, I would have thought. Just because you are the daughter of someone does not mean in your own right you are notable. Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not notable because she is the daughter of King George VI of the United Kingdom: She is notable in her own right. Peaches Geldof similarly is notable not because she is the daughter of Bob Geldof but because she hit the press for various naughties. I think we have a policy on this but struggling to find it: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay but well-established. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple. You cannot overlook the Paula Yates syndrome. 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. That is exactly what we must do. Paula Yates is notable in her own right, not because she was the sometime wife of Bob Geldof (perhaps I picked the worst example possible). These daughters are not notable in their own right. Any woman except Eve is the daughter of someone, but we don't have articles for every celebrity's daughter (partly because they are entitled to their privacy): if they choose to put themselves in the public eye, that's a different matter, but we don't have an article on Kathryn Blair], for example, the daughter of Tony Blair and Cherie Blair, because she is not in the public eye and not notable in herself. (She is in Cherie Blair's infobox: actually it Rs to the DAB at Katherine Blair, but she hasn't an article: as gnoming I'll check if that is tagged properly.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I marked the R at Kathryn Blair as {{R from incorrect name}}. I am not sure it even belongs on that DAB because it just says "daughter of former prime minister Tony Blair" so I am not sure that is very useful. We don't have Paula Yates Syndrome. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, in Tony Blair's infobox the children are not linked, and are listed only by first name: In Cherie Blair's, they have surnames ("Blair"). I think my point is proved, though, and I don't want to fix that while this discussion is open (and not sure which way I would fix it: children of famous people are entitled to their privacy; but the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages is a matter of public record which anyone can look up, and genealogy websites generally do). Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Unfortunately I discovered a new problem. User:Retrieverlove is the person who moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material of this article. Actually Hatice Sultan didn't die as a one-year-old girl (that was my mistake). Actually she had a political marriage and was influential. Take a look at the history of the page. I don't know what to do now. Should we make two separate articles for these two individuals? All of these happened because of that user. He always move pages and changes their material without discussion. Then I'll report the situation to an administrator to make those articles separated. There are warnings on his user page telling him to start a new article for a new individual except moving the pages and destroying their material. Of course he hasn't made this kind of problem since a few months ago. Anyway we have to decide what to do with this redirect page. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I'm really confused. When I read the page's history before moving I understood that he just moved the page and changed the name from Hatice to Fatma. I think we have to ask him why he did this? Maybe the correct title for this article is Fatma Sultan and she was married to Ibrahim Pashsa not her sister Hatice. It's really confusing. Someone has to ask him why he moved the page. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f:} we can work together on this. My Arabic is not very good, but Wikipedia is kinda "blocking" the search engines so that every time you try to look this up you go round the houses to end up where you started. We'll sort it out by working together, yes? Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment making a start, "Sultan" is not a name you ever have as a first name in English but Zoltan is a very popular name in Hungarian. Excuse me for doing the working-out here but we'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, so what you're saying is Hatice and Fatma are two different people. In that case, there is no point linking one to the other, that is just misleading. I think that is what you are saying. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I have checked the sources. They're two different individuals. They're sisters. The things that I don't know is that was Hatice married to Ibrahim Pasha or Fatma? Was Hatice and influential figure during his father's reign or Fatma? I don't why that user moved this page. We have to ask him. I don't want to make false statements about two historical figures. We have to make sure. Keivan.fTalk 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds like the simplest solution for now would be to undo the move and change of article scope. That never should've happened, regardless of the notability of either of these figures. From there, we could AfD Hatice or write a new article on Fatma as necessary. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Query @Keivan.f: is it at all possible they were both married to Ahmed III? That seems rather incestuous but it happens. I believe, and I may very well be mistaken, in Islam one is allowed to have four wives, but he was Christian surely, although no mention of his religion is at the target. According to theottomons.org he did seem to like to collect wives. God only knows why, one is enough trouble.Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Si Trew: No they're his daughters and I'm sure that he was a Muslim, not a Christian. But you're right. Under the Islamic law you can just have four "wed" wives. Ottoman's harem system seems to be confusing at first but I can explain it now. Above the all women of the harem was valide sultan, mother of the sultan. After her, four wed wives of the sultan had the highest positions. They were called haseki sultan or kadınefendi. Then came daughters and sisters of the sultan and finally there were many concubines who were called hatun or hanımefendi. Women were called hatun (instead of sultan) and valide hatun (instead of valide sultan) before Suleiman the Magnificent's reign. He created the titles valide sultan and haseki sultan for his mother, Ayşe Hafsa Sultan, and his principal wives, Hürrem Sultan and Mahidevran Sultan, and the title hatun remained for lower ranked wives and concubines. After 1650s kadınefendi and hanımefendi were used instead of haseki sultan and hatun. Keivan.fTalk 06:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • thanks for that. This is all useful information and I learned a lot, we should probably link into the article, which doesn't even mention Harem except in a reference. The reason I assumed he was Christian was just the picture on the external link I gave appears to show (in my eyes) him wearing a mitre but I guess it is some other kind of titfer. I think poor old Ahmed needs quite a tidy up then, but don't like to do so when it's related to an open discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This screen keeps moving things around. Fed up with it. My question to @Keivan.f:, who is obviously the expert on this one and am inclined to go on that expertise: My question is, do you think that Hurrem Sultan and the Harem of the Sultan could possibly be confused (to an English-language audience): and if so how would we disambiguate that? Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have Imperial Harem and I suppose the Sultan was the Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, it is not about what is right but what is useful. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Actually Hürrem Sultan won't be confused with the Harem of the Sultan, that's because she's known to the west by her nickname, Roxelana, and is known to the east by her royal name, Hürrem Sultan. Keivan.fTalk 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Thank you once again for your expertise, a true credit to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: You're welcome ;) Keivan.fTalk 08:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, still not sure on that. Because in my southern British accent we tend to use elision a lot, which seems lazy to others but is not laziness it is part of my accent or dialect, so a "hat" becomes a "a" with glottal stop each side which actually is harder, if you think about it, than just saying "hat", but there's loads of H dropping and whatever, and our vowels are all over the place. I have trouble living in hungary because the vowels are very precise and I can never hit them right cos in English they are dipthongs whereas in Hungarian they are pure vowels. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Aciram: - Are you able to help us sort this out? Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh God. When I added these redirect pages for discussion, I didn't except a long discussion without any result. I think we made our statements clear. Let's see what the other users think. Keivan.fTalk 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of letting this rot in the old logs or closing this as no consensus, I'd like to see a fresh set of eyes on this discussion. I've informed WP:OTTOMAN and WP:TURKEY about these two discussions and hopefully they can help us reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Bob l'éponge[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. SpongeBob is not especially Spanish or French. Tavix | Talk  04:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete SpongeBob is a English-language creation from the U.S.A. so no affinity for any language except English -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Hits above noise level. Second one especially: 140 times in April: 432 times in the last 90 days. First one more marginal. (The first one I assume is French and the second Spanish.) Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. No inherent connection between the subject and Spanish or French, or coverage of Spanish or French versions at the target article. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. No reason has been suggested for deletion, nor do I see any. WilyD 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @WilyD: You are wrong yet again. There is a reason suggested for deletion: WP:RFOREIGN. You might not agree with it, but it is still a valid reason for deletion. If you look at WP:RFDO#Foreign-languages, you can see that foreign language redirects with no connection with that language are deleted all the time. If you want the redirects kept, just say that it "directs readers to what they're looking for." That's ALL you need to say. The second part weakens your argument with that ridiculous statement. Tavix | Talk  17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That isn't a reason for deletion - I can't agree or disagree with it, because it's a complete non sequitur. It's not that I particularly want the redirects kept or not, but that I want to suss out whether they should be kept or not. Highly relevant to that is the reason(s) that have been presented for that - here that the redirects have been nominated for deletion, but no reasons has been given is important to trying to suss out what's going on, and what to do about it. WilyD 12:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can't agree or disagree with "it" (not sure what "it" is) then why !vote for delete rather than just stay neutral? As Tavix says, a reason has been given: WP:RFOREIGN (WP:FORRED), in the nomination. I don't understand how that is a non sequitur when that essay discusses what has been consensus in previous foreign-language redirects, unless you are totally rejecting the idea of precedent and think everything must be discussed ab initio. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @WilyD: Not only that, but this page covers ten reasons for deleting redirects. One of which, WP:RFD#D8, covers a redirect that "is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" and specifically uses foreign-language redirects as its example. Tavix | Talk  15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:ConvertMass[edit]

Delete. Unused, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, since the target converts lots of things other than mass. Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lu Zhen Chinese translation of the Bible[edit]

The author's name of this translation version of the Bible is "Lü Zhenzhong" (呂振中, or Lu Zhenzhong/Lu Zhen Zhong). It has nothing to do with "Lu Zhen". Iokseng (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritual wine server (guang), Indianapolis Museum of Art, 60.43[edit]

Delete. Nobody will search this way. WP:CONCISE. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have a hard time guessing how people will search for this, but the redirect is a plausible guess (more plausible than the actual title, for instance). WilyD 08:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep on the whole. This was the original article title, auto-redirected after a move. These are always best left imo. Does WP:CONCISE have any bearing here in fact? Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – per WP:R#KEEP #=4, "[...] redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. [...] " and the old title was created 22 May 2012. Christian75 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks like a catalog listing in any case, and those are reasonable search terms, since the searcher might have nothing but the catalog listing to search on. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Qantas Domestic[edit]

Misleading target, as people would expect to look for something like Qantas destinations or something else, I can't seem to find a better target. - TheChampionMan1234 04:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May 27[edit]

Template:Unit[edit]

Deprecate and delete. {{Convert}} covers. Using "unit" for conversion of quantity is misleading and wrong. The word 'unit' in this context means something else (mile ~ kilometre, but not 1 mile = 1 kilometre). On top of this, the documentation of {{Convert}} is huge already, we should not use mind space to explain this marginal option. Deprecate, substreplace with {{Convert}} and delete. DePiep (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Half a day later I have added Template:Units and Template:Unité for being similar. @Jimp and SimonTrew: pinged. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete It's a duplication of {{convert}} now unused. Jimp 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Delete all three. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a redirect, so isn't a duplication, it's always been a redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Added formally. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete both {{unit}} and {{units}} as somewhat recent creations (2013) much newer than the {{convert}} it points to; which do no make sense as redirects, since "unit(s)" does not mean conversion. It could be a footer navbox for systems of units navigation -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Delete bothall. There has been a recent conversation at Template Talk:Convert about this. The basic problem seems to be that in French (and perhaps other Latinate languages) this is a false friend (fr:Template:Unité in French) where the template allows the editor to specify magnitude+unit but does not do conversion, and that GTrans and perhaps manual translators miss it (I was "accused" of this yesterday but I can't find it in the WP:PNTCU article that I was working on). So, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I considered suggesting retargeting to {{val}} but that seems unnecessary, and the default formatting for val is to use thin spaces, not commas, for thousands separation, which I've not often seen in the wild (even though it's SI notation). Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
On the French Wikipedia it does function more like {{val}} does here but the syntax is different to {{val}} as it is to {{convert}}. Having them redirect to either would introduce problems because of this "false friend" problem. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Added and tagged formally. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete that one too, it's not even English, and the target is not a topic that has affinity for non-English languages -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Synthetic actor[edit]

The current target is inappropriate for this term as it isn't mentioned there and doesn't refer to an "actor" generally. "Synthetic actor refers to a computer-generated entity in a virtual world" according to source. However, I'm not seeing any widespread use of the term and it isn't used anywhere at Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be deleted. Tavix | Talk  18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Albums in 2009[edit]

Delete as confusing/nonsense. "Upcoming" hasn't referred to 2009 in a long time... Tavix | Talk  18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as outdated and an unlikely search term. Also, there are no incoming links to the redirect from the article or talk spaces; any links are from user-type pages. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No longer relevant or useful. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Otherwise, call me Marty McFly. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym since 2009 already happened. --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no need for this outdated redirect that no one would think of typing.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:COMMON --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Characteristic exponent of a field[edit]

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 Procedural close, redirect has been boldly retargeted to Characteristic_(algebra) and new content written there. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. This term applies to fields in general and appears (from my quick survey) to be capable of supporting its own (small) article. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep now that I've updated the target. I've added a definition to Characteristic (algebra) and changed the redirect to point there, so the original rationale no longer applies. I have no objection to the material I added being split to a separate article later. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2015 (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.

St Vincent's Catholic Primary School[edit]

Delete: Subject not mentioned in article. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: It is mentioned at Mill Hill#Education (and a few other places). It could be worth a retarget, but my problem is that there are many schools with the same name. (My Google Maps search shows 12 schools in England, for example.) Since it's a primary school, none of them are likely to have an article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES so it'll probably be best to let the search engine deal with it. Tavix | Talk  16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing and as above. The school in Mill Hill[SV 1] would be a different one from that in Acton.[SV 2] That being said, nothing links to it, but I presume it was in an article at some time.
  1. ^ "Caritas Christi Urget Nos" [The love of Christ urges us to care for each other] (in Latin). The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1EJ. Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
  2. ^ "We grow, learn and achieve by following Christ". Pierrepoint Road, Acton, London W3 9JR. Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wang Zongyao[edit]

Delete. The Pinyin system of transcription isn't used in Hong Kong nor for Hongkongers. The redirect under this name is irrelevant to the subject of this entry. 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep But the article needs to be corrected. Pinyin should be removed from the infobox, and placed into a {{Chinese}} template below the infobox. The infobox should contain Jyutping and actual spellings. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wang Jian (Former Shu)#Personal information, which discusses a potentially-notable person who is actually called Wang Zongyao in English-language WP:RS (e.g. Hongjie Wang's Power and Politics in Tenth-Century China). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

ZONG[edit]

Retarget to the DAB at Zong, per my rationale at #ZoNG, below. I'm not convinced people searching for this particularlyoverwhelmingly want the mobile phone operator. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget to DAB as proposed. I don't see the capitalization as significant. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of Eve[edit]

This is an incorrect redirect. These are two separate films (oddly enough, Joseph Crehan stars in both). Maybe someone saw the DVD cover and didn't read it carefully. Anyway, I don't think Because of Eve is worth an article, and probably neither is Street Corner, but that's another issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ZoNG[edit]

No one is dumb enough to write 3 letters capital and one letter small. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep It is not the valid argument for deletion of a redirect that has been here for 6 years. Very similar and lots of requests for such types of redirects are made at WP:AfC/R and they are entertained as well.  sami  talk 08:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the DAB at Zong as {{R from alternative capitalization}}.
    • The target did have an entry there, but was listed via the redirect at Zong (mobile operator), which was then piped just to display "Zong": a rather unhelpful practice for a DAB (WP:DABPIPE, but even an unpiped R in a DAB is a bit iffy). I've fixed it with this change.
    • The count of hits (around 30 a day) is irrelevant, since we don't know how many people intended to end up at that article, accounting for around half the target's hits. If they did, the target might as well go WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and moved over the DAB page at Zong (the DAB, in turn, moving over the redirect at Zong (disambiguation)). Incidentally, stats.grok.se does not seem to be case-sensitive: stats for Zong, ZONG and ZoNG are identical: So the redirect hits could come as a split between the two R's.
    • "What Links Here" is more relevant, and nothing does (except this discussion). So, no hits to the target are caused by internal links, therefore must come from outside.
    • Sure, we could "break" external links, but they end up at a DAB where they are only one click away, so it is not a particularly serious breaking change. Otherwise we would be paralysed into never changing anything.
    • I think it perfectly reasonable that people typing on mobile devices, where one often has to shift each individual capital, might miss one. (You can usually put caps lock on, but it's not worth it for small words). Especially when the assumption is that the search is case-insensitive.
    • If nothing else, it needs a hatnote at the target to the DAB saying that "ZoNG redirects here. For other uses, see Zong (disambiguation)". ( → Zong). Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the DAB at Zong per SiTrew. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Remote Access Trojan[edit]

Retarget to section Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses, as per my rationale at WP:RFD#Remote Access Trojans (RATs), yesterday. While it is briefly mentioned at the current target, this section gives more information.

(I would be WP:BOLD and do so but I think that might confuse things while the other is under discussion, or be taken as pulling the rug from under others' feet.) Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

40 series[edit]

I would like to delete this redirect so that a future article can go here. Right now its target is an article about a Japanese diesel multiple unit train introduced in the 1970s. However, in Japanese railroading "40 series" by itself can refer to a much older train, an electric multiple unit of the 1930s. Although the English Wikipedia has no article about this older type, the Japanese Wikipedia has an extensive one, so an English one should be written eventually. But if the current pattern of English article titles for Japanese trains is followed, the expected title for such an article is presently taken by this redirect. In fact the only current use of the redirect was actually supposed to refer to the older 40 series type, not the KiHa 40 series. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. It would appear to be a valid search term. If an article about the 40 series EMU is ever written, it can be created at 40 series and a top-hat disambiguator note pointing to KiHa 40 series added to the top of the article, but until then, there is no reason to delete this redirect. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone can just create the article over the top of the redirect, or move a draft over a redirect, without needing any admin action. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I have no objection to the preceding arguments, especially since the erroneous use of this redirect which I had mentioned above has now been removed, so I suppose this will be closed as Keep unless someone else offers a compelling reason otherwise. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate there are many "40"-series out there, such as HP 39/40 series , Series 40 (which should probably be renamed to be a disambiguation page) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment not sure what you mean by "should be renamed...", 40 series (disambiguation) and Series 40 (disambiguation) are both red. Obviously if we make it a DAB we should create the standard "(disambiguation)" form, and probably the other added as a likely R, but Series 40 is an article not a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
"Series 40" should be renamed (probably to Nokia Series 40) to allow "Series 40" to point to the future disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
With you, it was the "renamed to be a disambiguation page" that got me. Series 30, similarly, is an article, but unlike for Nokia Series 40 we don't have a redirect at Nokia Series 30. It should probably be treated similarly if we decide to make a DAB for series 40 things. Precedents for "Series X" being a short title to a longer article name include:
Perhaps surprisingly, my search for "prefix:Series" returns just 51 results. Most seem to have been prefixed as suggested, e.g. "Psion Series 7", and I think these are just remnants of various moves, on the whole. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Taured[edit]

No mention in target article.   — Jess· Δ 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete it is a nice creepy story that's known as a hoax. However, I don't think it's even notable to be in the target list. --Lenticel (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wednesday Group[edit]

Makes no sense. The Wednesday Group appears to be a book directed towards women. It is about problems in their relationships (I think?). Though I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with politics. WP:SURPRISE for people looking for info on the book, and get taken to a page about a political party. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm no expert, but this book explicitly describes a Wednesday Group as being a faction of the Republican party. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "House Wednesday Group" apparently was a real faction of the Republicans in Congress that existed from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s, From the sources I can find, it is probably of enough historical importance to deserve an article. However, since we don't have any information about it, it's best not to pretend that we do. Perhaps the redlink will encourage someone to start an article about it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - a valid target, as shown here and here and here, among others. Perhaps Factions in the Republican Party (United States) is a better target? GiantSnowman 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It's going to have to be mentioned somewhere, though. Otherwise it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per IP. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Party of No[edit]

Possible attack page; this appears to be a satirical term to describe the party, but since the term seems to be somewhat common, I am not sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep plausible search term, since this epithet appears with some frequency -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The IP is right, but it's not really covered anywhere on Wikipedia (it's mentioned in several places). I think it could make it as an article, similar to Democrat Party (epithet). --BDD (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I made this page, out of agreement with the epithet. Upon review it makes better sense as its own article or perhaps as a redirect to some page regarding criticism of the US Republican party. Lebanonman19 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't find such a page. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reenergizational[edit]

Is this even a word? I can't find any actual usage of this anywhere. Not even Wiktionary has an entry... Tavix | Talk  07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Omnilexica has an entry here. The word is also used in context on this blog. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Would readers searching for these terms want the general idea of energy, though? For that matter, would readers search for these terms? --BDD (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of any other articles they would be searching for by using these terms. It is possible that a reader would search using one of these terms; I certainly don't see any benefit to deleting these redirects. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Because they are implausible search terms and I'm still unconvinced that it's a word. Tavix | Talk  22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's fair to say these are real words. There's probably a more linguistically correct way of saying this, but English is an extensible language. Something that energizes could be called energizational; something that reenergizes could be called reenergizational. (I think energizing and reenergizing would be the more common adjectival forms, but that's not especially important for this discussion.) We should be asking in what context a reader would likely encounter these terms. Unless their command of English is extremely basic, they can probably identify "energy" as the root of these words. So I suspect someone searching for these terms is not just looking for the general concept of energy. We're not a dictionary, and even if we were, the target article doesn't have these words or anything like them. We have to do better than this. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Adding these to the nom. We should first decide where these (shorter) noun (and verb) forms go, and let the "-al" forms follow. However, none of these – either in the original nom or my addendum – has any incoming links except those related to this discussion.
(Re-Energized is an article, a song by Kim English, to which Re-energized redirects. That's fine.)
  • Delete all. None is mentioned at the target, nor anything similar.WP:NOTDIC and alternatives, such as the DAB at Recharge, seem too far out. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Adding to nom:
  • Delete all Theu could probably have individual pages on Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sutton College[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. SCOLA is renaming itself as Sutton College on June 1 (typing this now so can copy later[1]) and would prefer outright deletion in lieu of move. Launchballer 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep or turn into a disambiguation page - The former name of one of Birmingham Metropolitan College's campuses, Sutton Coldfield College, is in one of the introductory paragraphs of the article, and often referred to as 'Sutton College'. J Di 10:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Scola to get new name in 'overhaul'{{subst:!}}publisher=Sutton Guardian{{subst:!}}page=6}}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
But we only have two, as far as I can tell. In that case, we're better off with a hatnote, per WP:TWODABS. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Rod Blasonofabitch[edit]

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. Vandalism/attack page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Attack page, despite the edit summary of the most recent recreation. Ordinarily I'd simply re-delete it, but the shitstorm kicked up by my previous re-deletion of what I interpreted as an attack has made me more attuned to process wanking. I don't see any sort of mention of this term in any of the Google News archives, and almost all of the hits from the regular search are either from user-edited sites or blogs. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE Number 3 --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is clearly vandalism, so blatantly so that I've CSDd it.--Launchballer 07:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ex post facto note: There's a companion redirect, Rod Blasonuvabitch, that I have also tagged for speedy deletion. Tavix | Talk  16:35, 27 May 2015 (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.

List of people charged under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT[edit]

It's a joke redirect by a kid at school making a joke about his friends. We probably can safely delete this. It's not a plausible redirect in its own right. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Target is not a list of people so charged. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I did a search for Section 213 to see if there is such a thing. There is, it is the section about "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant": "DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
  • (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
  • (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
  • (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'."
    • Nothing to do with sentencing or with people related to this section. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Then it's WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, as well. Presumably later there is a section detailing the remedy if this clause is violated. Ultimately this is an amendment to US Code § 3003a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant] and does not of itself suggest any remedy (i.e. charge). Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

Jokeware[edit]

I'm finding little evidence that Jokeware is a thing. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I read about the term somewhere, and I'm sure there was mention of it in the malware article at some point. But I won't lose any sleep over the outcome of this. This is Paul (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a fake screen thing that's a "joke" so not destructive, but if you have a fake login screen that BSODs, you might do something destructive to your own system to "fix" the error. And various other types of these "jokes" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The term is used outside Wikipedia, so it is not completely made up. See this forum discussion from 2007: "I want to make a program that jokes around with unsuspecting users and looks like a malicious program. Not a normal malware program that does actual harm, just like a proof-of-concept/"look at what I made!" bragging rights kind of thing. And no, I am not going to shove this into any of my programs or anything (as it is, I might edit it so its less badware and more jokeware)." Not certain if the term is known enough to mention in article, however. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Remote Access Trojans (RATs)[edit]

I think we can redirect this to a more specific page, like Trojan horse (computing). Mr. Guye (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted software[edit]

Unwanted software is not inherently malicious. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless a more suitable target can be found. Unwanted software can be a broad definition of just about anything that somebody doesn't happen to want installed on their computer, such as an add on that comes with a software update, but would by no means be classed as malware. This is Paul (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete REDLINK, we should have an article on this topic, really. - TheChampionMan1234 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. The real term seems to be PUP (potentially unwanted program). It is related to spyware and computer viruses but not necessarily one of them. --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Malware#Grayware per SiTrew. Nice catch. --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Malware#Grayware per SiTrew. Seems reasonable enough. Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

圣彼埃尔.德.克拉日[edit]

Delete. Not related to Chinese. Gorobay (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed, no reason to carry a redirect from the Chinese transcription of this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete French-speaking Switzerland has no particular affinity for Chinese -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Deéete. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is as an alias of the village, it is an unsourced one. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a French name, and redirects aren't usually created unless there's a connection between the language and the target. And the village is located in Switzerland, so there is no connection between it and Chinese. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Florida Federation Of Black Republicans[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. This was created as a promotional article by a local school board candidate, who also created an article on herself, back in 2006. BDD (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia does not have a relevant article and google offers few results. If this group exists, it is probably non-notable. Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Air traffic[edit]

Could refer to air traffic control, I don't think that the current target is a common usage. - TheChampionMan1234 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of this particular Brit band, but I do know that I've sometimes just typed "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_article" and found that it was actually listed at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Article". I've created a few redirects that way. Perhaps the creator of this redirect did the same? Modified a good URL to a bad one, and created the redirect so that the previously bad URL now works? In any case, I'd want to either make "Air traffic" a disamb (which seems ridiculous) or put a hatnote on the "Air Traffic" article. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. unless Air Traffic is moved to Air Traffic (band) (but that may require a WP:RM discussion.) The WP:DIFFCAPS argument/difference is not strong with these two. The better option may be to add an applicable hatnote to Air Traffic. All examples presented thus far are possible examples that seem to not be specifically referred to by this term. On the same token, weak disambiguate due to what I just stated. Steel1943 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air traffic control and add a hatnote for the band. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air traffic control and hatnote, per User:Largoplazo. WP:RFD#D2 confusion (not suggesting a delete but we don't have a section in the RfD guidance on "when to retarget" so thinking of a retarget as a deletion followed by a creation for the purpose of which rationale it comes under). I think "Aviation" is too general. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air traffic control and hatnote, per User:Largoplazo. The band is not that widely known. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hindustan Murdabad[edit]

Term Hindustan Murdabad is not as commonly used as Pakistan Murdabad. It is an attack redirect. Hindustan is not even official name of India. Official names of India are "India" and "Bharat". As redirect history says creator said that "I'm creating this redirect as Pakistan Murdabad" redirect exists." So it is clear case of "tit for tat" and "revenge". Human3015 Say Hey!! • 06:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}}

  • Keep. Variations of Pakistan's official motto in the form of Pakistan/Hindustan/Khalistan/Someotherstan + jindabad/zindabad/murdabad seem to be very commonly used by English speakers who originate in the region, and it seems very likely that an English speaker from outside the region might want to look up these terms on Wikipedia. The motto of Pakistan is most common in itself, and we have an article about it; otherwise I don't see that one or the other variation is slightly less common and don't think it would be a good reason to delete only some variations if true. Quite frankly, it might be best to have a section on these coinages in the Pakistan Zindabad article, and redirect all these terms there. That would be superior to the current situation, but, again, I see no reason to delete this. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Murdabad as a term means "down with" and "death to". This term is not used, nor translated in the target article. Is this really a common term in Anti-Indian sentiment, notable enough for a mention? Hindustan has its own article, which also does not used the phrase. Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a common Urdu slogan [8] and about as notable as Death to America which redirects to anti-American or Death to Israel which redirects to anti-Zionism. It's obviously not obsolete, otherwise it wouldn't have usage. Mar4d (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag of the Europe[edit]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_22#National_Anthem_of_the_Pakistan - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't see much harm being done by having this redirect exist. Why can't it be an {{R from erroneous name}}? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "the Europe" is not commonly used. Unclear use in a redirect. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

KE923[edit]

Non-notable flight that is not mentioned in target - TheChampionMan1234 02:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete NN flight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be served also under flight number KAL923 (not sure exactly as code sharing or just different in different markets/alphabets), but that is red, as you see. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The two letter code is the IATA code and the three letter one the ICAO code for the same airline, although not all have both. - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I can believe that, but the pages I were looking at implied it was used as a traveller-facing code, which ICAO codes usually aren't (are they?) Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability. Who will ever search for this term? Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Searching around, we don't seem to name articles (and, by implication, redirects) by the airline code + flight number, but spell the airline name in full. I searched WP:MOS for "flight code" and "flight number", and WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide similarly, but there seems no guidance on this, but some famous examples (such as BA001 or BA 001 for one of the scheduled Concorde flights) one would expect to have, if we had anything. (We don't have British Airways Flight 1, for that matter.) Notable flights are usually "<full name of airline> Flight <Flight number>", so we have e.g. Korean Air Flight 85 but not KE85 nor KE 85, so this presumably would be Korean Air Flight 923, were it notable enough to exist. So, I'd add WP:RFD#D2 confusing to my reasons to delete (which was essentially WP:RFD#D10, if notability could be established). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Das Persien[edit]

Unrelated language, and not in common usage, anyway. - TheChampionMan1234 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. We also have The Persian, a character from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, but I can't find an equivalent in German WP (it's not at the DAB I mentioned). That being said, German definite articles don't follow English language rules. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This could also link to another article: Symphonische Dichtungen aus Persien (Symphonic Poems from Persia), a 1980 recording of Persian music. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

No plausible target can be found, and pretty implausible search term. - TheChampionMan1234 02:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment we seem to be missing an article dedicated to the device invented by Bell himself (the information being spread amongst a multitude of articles), but we do have Bell Telephone Memorial -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and inaccurate. Seems that there are several titles of books that contain phrases similar to this one, but never exactly this one. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with User:Steel1943, WP:DEFINITE "Avoid definite and indefinite articles", WP:CONCISE. "Alexander Graham Bell" adds nothing to this since it's not an {{R to section}} or anything; WP:DIFFPUNCT. The Telephone is an article about a comic opera; The telephone is red. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Vague meaning and unclear use. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Emirados Arabes Unidos[edit]

Unrelated to these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Arabic speaking Arab countries with little affinity for romance languages; its colonial master was the UK not France; and was never dominated by Spain or Portugal, since it didn't exist in that era -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that would cause WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)