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 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.

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 the template in the previous step:
    • 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:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • 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.
  • 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]]

Current list[edit]

December 25[edit]

December 24[edit]

Virginia Aran[edit]

This redirect's subject is apparently the mother of the redirect's target's subject. However, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article; also, the redirect's subject plays such a minor role in the Metroid series that I (as a person who has essentially played all Metroid titles, with the exception of Metroid: Other M) cannot even recall this character. In fact, upon research, it seems that the redirect's subject was only present in the the manga, which doesn't even have its own article. With this information, I would say delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Links Theory[edit]

In 2005, this redirect was an article that was merged per a VFD discussion. However, at the present time, there is no information about the subject at its current target or the target it had when the article was merged. And per what the subject is for (a theory that there is more than one version of Link (The Legend of Zelda) in the The Legend of Zelda video game series), trying to recreate this information anywhere on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NOTFANSITE. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal Family of Hyrule[edit]

In the The Legend of Zelda video game series universe, this term refers collectively to a family of royalty in the game that includes more than just the redirect's target, and trying to go into more detail on Wikipedia is essentially against WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • There may be some place in a "Legend of Zelda"-related article to add the information as title in the scope of the redirect and not be a WP:NOTWIKIA violation, but the redirect's current target doesn't seem to be the place. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Inventory items exclusive to Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

A list as described by the redirect's name does not exist in its target article. The only possible retargeting option I see is Super Mario#Items, but the scope of that section is wider than the narrow scope as stated by this redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Koopa Clown Car[edit]

This is an in-game item/concept that has a strong connection to its target due to being introduced in Super Mario World, but has since been in several games in the Super Mario series since then, and not being an item exclusive to the redirect's current target in later games in the video game series. At the present time, there is no mention of the redirect's subject in its current target, and I cannot find a suitable option for retargeting. At this point, I'm seeing this redirect's existence being violations of WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kenny W. James[edit]

Per the redirects' subject's IMDb page, their only credited work is voicing Bowser. However, since the redirects' subject is not Bowser, I say delete per WP:REDLINK to promote article creation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • ...Or maybe restore Kenneth W. James as an article, given that detailed information about the redirects' subject seems to no longer be present in their target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I misunderstand you, the guy's done nothing except voicing this character, so any relevant information would go there. As you note, deleting it would promote article creation, so we also ought to keep it to discourage the creation of an inappropriate page. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: Yep, you understood the purpose behind my nomination fully. However, the main concern I have about retaining the redirect is the lack of biographical information about the redirects' subject at the target, which may be able to be resolved if the previous article version of Kenneth W. James could be expanded somehow. (...But unfortunately, I'm finding very little biographical information about the redirects' subject anywhere with search engines.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If all we can find about him is that he's done a voice for Bowser, he shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all, except for a short mention in Bowser's article. Since we have some information about him in that article, it can't hurt to tell searchers "Here's what we have on the guy" by sending them there, in addition to discouraging creation of a content-free or references-free article. Very different from your Eric Newsome nomination, since Newsome has done other things (and might qualify for an article) while James hasn't. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: Pretty much. I understand your point and was about to reference how Eric Newsome is different than this nomination, but you beat me to it. I have nothing else to add. (But, I am going to leave this discussion open, just in case someone else may mention something that supersedes your point.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

List of cheat codes for Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

The redirect's subject is not mentioned at its target. Also, converting the redirect to an article (or adding a section at the redirect's target that explains the redirect) would fail WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Newsome[edit]

Apparently, voicing this character (the redirect's target) is just one of the roles that the biographical subject of the redirect has done per his IMDb entry. So, I say delete per WP:REDLINK to promote article creation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Doomship[edit]

It seems that the redirect subject is the "airship" that appears in Super Mario Bros. 3, but isn't mentioned in this article, nor is mentioned at its current target. Also, most searches for this term on search engines bring up results relating to Sonic the Hedgehog. So, I'm thinking delete per WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, not mentioned in the article. Upon searching the term, just as many results relating to Sonic come up as Mario. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Craig Anderson (producer)[edit]

This should be deleted, as Craig Anderson is a dab and this is not an incomplete disambiguation. It should remain a redlink until an article is created. Nick Number (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The redirect is currently an entry on the disambiguation page, causing a circular reference. Deleting per WP:REDLINK seems like the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Anelloni[edit]

Someone prodded this page, but prods don't apply to redirects, so it was declined on procedural grounds. The prod rationale was "Anelloni" is a distinct pasta style that was recently invented by the University of Warwick. It is no longer appropriate to redirect Anelloni to the Anellini article. I'm neutral, coming here just to help the ill-informed prodder. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilayat Homs (ISIL)[edit]

Delete the redirects because the redirects constitute self-promotion. There's no officially recognized province as Wilayat Homs of ISIL. Articles with similar titles are deleted or being discussed for deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully support deleting the redirects (and I redirected some myself). See group deletion effort now. [1]Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (Australia)[edit]

Delete as an extremely implausible search term. This exact title doesn't appear on the redirected article, which makes it unnecessary. The fact that there is a disambiguator makes it even more unneeded. Tavix |  Talk  07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

N. Sanity Island[edit]

No mention on target article, though several articles in the "Crash Bandicoot"-subject articles mention it, but not in detail enough to describe it. The only other place the redirect's topic is listed (that I can find) is List of fictional islands. Otherwise, I'm swaying towards delete per WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Serene Branson[edit]

Delete. Bringing this redirect to RFD for User:CapnZapp from his nomination at AfD here. His reason for deletion was "Previous afd resulten in a redirect. This destination no longer mentions Serene Branson. There no longer is any info left on the subject." Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to KCBS-TV (no section). She is not mentioned there but according to the station's website she is still employed there. She made worldwide news in 2011 for an on-air paraphasia incident at the 53rd Grammy Awards which spawned a popular but short-lived internet meme, and the redirect is fairly frequently used (200 hits in November), however her bio didn't seem to quite pass WP:BLP1E despite a few minor award wins. It might be possible to write an article at some point. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget: Kind of a lousy reason to file a RfD. If there was enough info on Branson to sustain an article, there'd be an article. She's an employee of the station, her name appears in G-hits, it's a sensible redirect. Nha Trang Allons! 23:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete If she isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia and was previously deleted, it's a no-brainer to me that her name shouldn't be a redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (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) 03:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. I think that's the best way to go about it. I wouldn't be opposed to having a sentence about her somewhere in that article and I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility in the future. Tavix |  Talk  18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

World's Largest Apple[edit]

The subject referenced in this redirect does not exist at the target article. Per the redirect's history, this redirect was previously a short stub article that was redirected to a section in Apple in 2009, but that section has not existed since at the latest 2013. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Big Apple (Colborne, Ontario) which claims to be the world's largest apple. Or disambiguate, if there are other notable claims. Winchester, Virginia also apparently claims to have the world's largest apple, but it is not mentioned in the article at all. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that World's Largest Artificial Apple targets to Colborne. Ivanvector (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No objection; I've added it. I prefer to retarget/keep both, as it's a verifiable claim (we can verify that they claim it). And it would be unlikely we'd ever have an article about the world's largest biological apple, so this takes readers to somewhat relevant information. It's at least not generally misleading. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, unless we ever decided not to have a list of such records (as we would with, say, sports topics), I think the largest grown apple would have more encyclopedic value than a roadside attraction/publicity stunt. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2014 (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) 03:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Aelia Eudocia#Banishment. Or more seriously, retarget to World's Largest Artificial Apple. It's a redirect currently here at RFD, so the ultimate fate of this redirect should depend on the fate of the World's Largest Artificial Apple: keep this one if that stays, retarget this if that changes, and delete this if that's deleted. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

August 9 1974[edit]

This date redirects to one specific even that happened that day. It would probably be best to either delete the redirect due to being ambiguous, or convert it into an article with a list of events that happened that day. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The date may be important regarding Nixon but I doubt that it's the only important event that happened on that date.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • keep It appears that it is by far the primary topic for encyclopaedic events that happened on that day, and the only one that Wikipedia has an article about. If we have other articles in future then hatnotes or disambiguation can be implemented as appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to August 9, treating this like incomplete disambiguation. Do we have any similar cases? --BDD (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment do you mean specifically that it hasn't the comma to make it a well-formed MDY date? The only other I've found so far is:
The target mentions a fact about the Clementine mission, a redirect to Clementine (spacecraft), but not to section #Mission which mentions it. Si Trew (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant any single-date redirects. Thanks for all the legwork you're doing compiling those. In some cases, there may be a logical target—September 11, 2001 is an obvious case that easily springs to mind—but I do think the general day article is the best way to go when there are multiple notable events that occurred on a particular day. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to August 9 per BDD. A lot of things happened during that day. --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. @BDD: your wish is my command. I went through searching:
    • For 2002, January has the form January nn, 2002 redirecting to January 2002 for 0 < nn < 6 but not to section. The form nn January 2002 is always redlink.
    • For 2003, January has the form January nn, 2003 redirecting to January 2003 for 0 < nn < 32 but not to section. The form nn January 2003 is always redlink. Other months seem to follow this form, but I haven't checked their targets specifically, only that they exist.
    • For 2004, January has the similar form as for 2003.
    • For 2003 and 2004, all other dates seem to follow those for January, but I haven't checked their targets only their existence.
    • Other dates (with no other description) are generally redlink, but:
Si Trew (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2014 (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) 03:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If we retain the Nixon connection, we ought to retarget it slightly, sending it to Richard Nixon#Resignation; if you don't know anything about his life, you won't immediately understand the reason for the redirect, but sending it to the Resignation section should prevent confusion. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: The issue I see with retaining the connection of this redirect solely to Richard Nixon is the connection that National Peacekeepers' Day, a holiday in Canada, has with the date August 9, 1974. Basically, I see retaining the connection solely to Richard Nixon as a violation of WP:WORLDWIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand, and I don't really have an opinion on your idea. I'm just saying if we end up deciding to keep it at Nixon, send it to the section instead of sending it to the top of the article. My opinion shouldn't matter as far as considering whether to delete it or whether to send it to a completely different target. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Pop no 1s[edit]

Too generic a title to redirect to specific year of a specific chart. Pop songs and music charts go back decades and this redirect will not help anyone. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, too generic to be useful. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Billboard number-one singles, if that's the parent topic. If there's a topic that's yet more generic, retarget there. If it doesn't exist yet, we can just put together a simple new page, linking List of Billboard number-one singles and whatever other lists of #1 singles. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But what about all the pop songs that went to number one in the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany. I think the most generic target would be pop music. --20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Then retarget it to the list that includes Billboard and the UK/Australian/German/etc #1s. Does it not exist? <copypaste>If it doesn't exist yet, we can just put together a simple new page, linking List of Billboard number-one singles and whatever other lists of #1 singles</copypast>. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • There's this: Lists of number-one songs. Still believe the redirects aren't even worth keeping. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Thank you. This is to where I think we ought to redirect it. Why do you believe deletion better than retargeting them there? They're generic titles, and so is Lists of number-one songs. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ching Chang Chong[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main article has no mention of "Ching Chang Chong" being another name for rock paper scissors. Therefore I believe these should be deleted retargeted to Ching chong. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The relation is not clear, and search engines provide results that have nothing to do with the target's subject or anything notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Knight of the Wind[edit]

This is a "nickname" for the target used in only in one video game, Sonic and the Black Knight. The redirect's name is not mentioned in the target article, and due to lack of a notable connection to the target, fails WP:NOTWIKIA. However, it seems that a song by the name of "Knight of the Wind" was made for the formerly-mentioned video game and composed by Crush 40 (a group formed by Jun Senoue specifically for Sonic the Hedgehog video games) so there may be a retargeting option with this redirect, but I'm leaning more towards delete due to the lack of coverage of the redirect in any of the aforementioned articles. Steel1943 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong delete there are many "wind knights" or "knights of the wind" in fiction, especially Japanese fiction (such as the origin of Sonic, being a Japanese videogame) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 23[edit]

Iblis Trigger[edit]

This is a "nickname" for the target used in only in one video game, Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). The redirect's name is not mentioned in the target article, and due to lack of a notable connection to the target, fails WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Twin Brooks[edit]

Retarget/disambiguate to Twinbrook (disambiguation); Twin Brooks, Edmonton has 100x the population of the one in South Dakota. Better this point to a joint dab page for Twinbrook/Twin Brook/Twinbrooks/Twin Brooks, and indicate both the SD and AB settlements on that page. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and add the Twin Brooks to the dab.--Lenticel (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Zdeněk Miler[edit]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Heartilly[edit]

I question this redirect's helpfulness, given that it is a {{R from surname}} for a fictional character that is not referred solely by their surname at any point in the game, to my knowledge. (In most, if not all, Final Fantasy titles, most playable characters, such as Rinoa Heartilly, are referred by their surname very seldom, if at all (the only exception that I can think of is Adelbert Steiner); the given names are used constantly without the surnames.) Also, this redirect seems to not be a candidate for disambiguation due to lack of other titles that utilize this word. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unfortunately there's no IRL heartlily plant. --Lenticel (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack list of 2012 film[edit]

This seems like a very implausible query to me, and the separate 2012 film soundtrack article was iteself redirected back to the film article. DonIago (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete this is not a list of soundtracks for films released in 2012 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Refine target to 2012 (film)#Soundtrack which contains some of what people using this redirect are looking for. This is the original title of the article about the soundtrack to the film called 2012 (nothing to do with any other films released in 2012) that was moved to 2012 (film soundtrack) and then merged into the main article following an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I admittedly have a hard time believing anyone is actually using this redirect. If memory serves, the creator of the article which this redirect succeeded was ultimately blocked for disruptive editing in part because they were demonstrating a less than perfect grasp of the English language. DonIago (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't had sufficient time existing as a redirect without activity on it (only 16 October to 28 November) for there to be reliable viewing statistics, but it was getting hits almost every day which is suggestive that it is being used by humans. Only a few months after this discussions will there be sufficient data for a reliable answer to that question. At least in the meanwhile, this is completely harmless so deletion wont bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not harmless, it is highly misleading, it is not a list of soundtracks for the film industry in 2012. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If it were "Soundtrack list of 2012 films" then you might have a case, but it isn't. It clearly refers to 2012 (film) not 2012 in film so it isn't actually misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
That's an assumption on your part. I think it could just as easily be assumed that someone meant for it to be "Soundtrack list of 2012 films" and inadvertently omitted the final 's'. The redirect utilizes poor syntax, I have a difficult time imagining anyone specifically searching for the redirect as listed, and can't imagine that anyone would be unable to find the information they're looking for if the redirect were to be deleted. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete. A search for "<whatever> 2012 film" should rank "2012 (film)" high enough. Yes, I know our search engine is sometimes less than perfect (and sometimes even annoying...) nevertheless, creating redirects from just about ever confusing sentence one may create with a few keywords will not help (and likely will harm). That is, we do not want to have, say "Film soundtrack list of 2012", nor "2012 film Soundtrack list", nor "Soundtrack of 2012 film list", why keep this one just because someone, once, made that mistake? - Nabla (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete since this redirect is ambiguous, and I cannot fathom its usefulness if it were to be made a disambiguation page with two entries, but just in case, possibly weak disambiguate. I don't see the current target or retargeting as the answer due to ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2014 (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) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Adult comedy[edit]

Delete. Adult comedy isn't a synonym black/dark comedy, and the article doesn't mention it. There's nowhere else obvious to redirect this: adult comedy film was AfD'd in 2005 and now redirects to comedy film which has barely anything to say about it. McGeddon (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (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) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or retarget though some people call comedy not aimed at children that (ie. with political, language, sexuality, etc) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Linux Command: tar[edit]

This title looks like a Wikibooks title, plus unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely redirect, incorrect disambiguation (which would be tar (linux command) -- so not useful -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contrary to the two suppositions above, the evidence from the page views (15-40 every month since at least January) is that this is a very useful search term. It just needs tagging as {{R from other disambiguation}} so it can continue existing harmlessly and usefully as it has done since 2009. Someone familiar with the way Wikipedia disambiguates articles would probably not use this search term, but there are many people who have not internalised Wikipedia's naming conventions and/or may be entering this term into their favourite search engine not specifically looking for Wikipedia's content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2014 (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) 16:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben King (actor)[edit]

This is an R from member, but the target page doesn't mention this guy at all. It's unhelpful, misleading, and, because of the disambiguator, it's an implausible search term. The article was deleted in 2008 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben King (actor)), but somehow the redirect remains. Tavix |  Talk  06:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Mob[edit]

I really have no idea why this page redirects to this article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • One of the members, Michael Hernandez is in the group Foreign Mob with his manager Carlos Suarez. Sci-fi the Genius, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci-fi the Genius (talkcontribs)

YRP on Final Fantasy X2[edit]

Apparently, "YRP", as in this redirect, refers to the characters Yuna, Rikku, and Paine (as explained on the target page). However, there is not a section on this page dedicated to the acronym, so without explanation of the acronym on any page, readers unfamiliar with the subject will not understand why they were redirected here. For now, I say delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. Carter (Beyoncé album)[edit]

Was redirected to Beyoncé in 2013 when it was speculated that Mrs. Carter might be the name of her fifth album, which ended up being titled Beyoncé. Mrs. Carter was never a confirmed name and is now an unlikely search term. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 22[edit]

Stay away from the summoner[edit]

This seems to be a quote from one of the characters in Final Fantasy X, but the character who said it doesn't even seem to be a notable character listed on Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2; some random old lady character says it. The phrase seems to be a subject of some sort of Internet meme, but I don't believe it's notable enough of a quote to not fail WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete seems to be an injoke within the fanbase especially since the main character did end up with the summoner.--Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Puck (videogames)[edit]

The disambiguator used in this redirect is too ambiguous to be useful or helpful. I mean, if I were looking up this redirect, my first thought would be arriving to an article about hockey pucks used in video games, and popular search engines partially agree with that thought with most other results relating to Pac-Man or Pong. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom or Retarget to Pac-man since that game was first called Puck Man --Lenticel (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to PacMan since hockey videogames all have pucks. Delete highly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - when something is highly ambiguous like this, the best solution is almost always to disambiguate to help readers find what they are looking for rather than hinder them by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I really do not see how disambiguation for this term would be helpful. None of the above examples have a item, character, or other concept that goes solely by the name "Puck", with the exception of the current target. Also, the cleaner disambiguation option would be to retarget this term to Puck, a disambiguation page. In addition, all of the terms mentioned this far are either partial title matches (Pac-Man was known originally as "Puck Man", not just as "Puck") or a made-up name for the concept (for example, Pong was actually advertised as a tennis game, which uses balls, not a hockey game, which uses pucks). Lastly for now, the disambiguator in the redirect is so non-standard that the likelihood of someone searching it with a specific article in mind, or even at all, is very unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you wouldn't want to create a separate dab; see WP:INCDAB. And looking over the current dab at Puck, there don't seem to be any viable options. --BDD (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Rights Alliance[edit]

name of the organisation that is responsible for shutting down The Pirate Bay, shouldn't redirect to a page who's name is a mockery of it. Possible libel issues? Avono (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1993 LPGA Corning Classic[edit]

Most Non major championships in golf are not considered notable. The Corning Classic isn't an exception. ...William 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Are you saying that the LPGA Corning Classic is not notable, or just the 1993 edition of it?. If it is the former, then I suggest you take that up at WP:AFD and, if that deletion is approved there, this redirect should be taken care of as part of the tidy up. If it is the latter, then that would presumably be why we don't have an article on the 1993 LPGA Corning Classic. As stated in WP:RFDOUTCOMES, there is no notability requirement for redirects, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's articles about yearly non major championships. What is there to discuss? How about the reason you created the redirect in the first place?...William 01:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That still doesn't make any sense - this redirect is not an article, and the target is not about the yearly events. If the championships as a whole are notable (and while I'm no expert they look to be) then redirects from the individual years to the target are good redirects to have. If you disagree the target is notable, then you are in the wrong place and need to nominate LPGA Corning Classic at AfD. If you think the individual year should have an article then you can just overwrite the redirect with that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • And I have absolutely no recollection of creating that redirect nearly three years ago, so I cannot give a definitive answer to why. Unlike articles, I don't spend too much time pondering the creation of redirs; if it seems as if it might help a subsequent user I just do it. Like as not, I fell over a red link to 1993 LPGA Corning Classic in another article I was working on (or even just consulting), discovered that there was an article at LPGA Corning Classic that seemed pretty relevant to the link, and created the redir. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wanderlust (software)[edit]

Doesn't make sense to have this redirect. Wanderlust is just an Emacs package, not a part of Emacs itself. It'd be like redirecting Microsoft Word to Microsoft Windows just because Word happens to run on Windows.

It'd be better if it was just deleted, rather than leaving users wondering where in the Emacs article they will find information about Wanderlust. — Parent5446 (msg email) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

List of ...for Dummies books[edit]

  • Fine by me if you want to add that to this discussion, if you will please first add the appropriate notice at the redirect itself. The principle is the mostly the same: having a redirect from a potential list-article title seems appropriate to me, seems not helpful to Choor monster apparently. I happened to think that "List of For Dummies books" was the obvious title, and did not find my way to the long-ago AFD about "List of ...For Dummies books" until later. Which is a point towards having the redirects set up, to provide ways to link to previous discussions. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Too tedious for me. Do so if you wish. Whatever is decided here just applies there without need for discussion, right? As it is, I provided the link to the long ago deletion discussion in my initial RFD here, so your point about the need for extra redirects completely escapes me. Redirects are for the benefit of our readers, not editors who are in an RFD. Choor monster (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete: this redirect was created solely as a gaming-the-system action on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success as a Mediator for Dummies; there used to be an article with the same title, long-ago deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination); see also the Edit Summary comments on For Dummies that this "redirect" is a placeholder for a supposedly future article. The comments in the original deletion seem as relevant today as then. The target is actually For Dummies#List of For Dummies books, but the section wasn't a "list" of For Dummies books, just a short annotated list of some better sellers from the series. Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

...Or targeting whatever the section is named when this discussion is closed. Please see my responses to Doncram's vote below for details. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That amounts to calling for "Keep", IMO. Of course the redirect should be updated if the section title is changed. Or it could be revised to go to an "anchor" that will stay no matter how many times the section title is revised. Section title has changed several times now. --doncram 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nonsense that the redirect was part of any "gaming the system". There obviously are some notable examples, including the book asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time (which was not previously mentioned in the For Dummies article). It is perfectly fine for there to be a section in the For Dummies article listing notable examples in the series, and it is perfectly fine to have a redirect or two to that section, rather than splitting out a separate list-article already. I imagine the deletion nominator would dislike there being a separate Wikipedia article right away; it is appropriate to build a list of notable examples as a section. --doncram 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. It doesn't matter whether the section in the "For Dummies" article is named "List of For Dummies books" or "Landmark For Dummies books" or whatever; it is helpful to have a redirect from "List of For Dummies books" to the section where a list is started and can be further developed, before it is split out. --doncram 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I call its appearance in the midst of an AFD, explicitly mentioned by you, in order to support your preferred outcome of that discussion, "gaming". In particular, I see no reason why any wikilinking shouldn't simply be a pipe directly to For Dummies. Lists, per se, are not a natural wikilink target, almost only used in "See also" or other generic information information. If you have a need to mention an obscure crater on the Moon that doesn't have its own article, you link to the most informative article, not the "List". Choor monster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's incorrect. My !Vote there was/is to Keep the article. My creating the list-section at For Dummies actually facilitates a different outcome. It was created by me to end silliness there about whether a list of For dummies books could exist as a list-article; it is obvious that a list can exist as a section at least, if not a separate list-article. Your opening this RFD seems to support your preferred outcome of that discussion, "gaming".... --doncram 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Doncram: Regardless of the nominator's intent with nominating the redirect, as the situation currently stands, the section in the nominated redirect, For Dummies#List of For Dummies books, currently does not exist in the article, so "keep" is not really a valid outcome. For it to be, the section would have to be created; at the present time, the only section that even slightly resembles the topic of the redirect's title, from what I see, is the section I mentioned in my "vote" above. Redirects to sections that do not exist are not helpful for our readers; in fact, I've seen in some cases in the past where a redirect would be deleted per WP:REDLINK to promote article creation, but as mentioned above, that may not be the best case since the list as an article has been nominated for WP:AFD previously. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Only because, just before opening this RFD (24 minutes before), the RFD nominator changed it, in this edit, to show "Landmark For Dummies books", instead. The section title did exist exactly as "List of For Dummies books". Was that to help "win" a little battle here? In my opinion, "List of For Dummies books" is obviously the better section title. Either way, it is appropriate to use redirects at List of For Dummies books and at List of ...for Dummies books to give a heads-up to future editors that they oughta check out the section there, first, instead of proceeding with the otherwise natural step of creating a list-article separately at either of these natural titles. (And it would be fine to include, in hidden comments or at Talk pages of those redirects, links to the long-ago AFD, for their information, although they and we are not strictly bound by that long-ago AFD. And you don't get it, I am supporting the sense of the AFD, that a separate list-article is not yet needed...). Obviously the redirect be adjusted to point to the actual section title, if/when that settles down. I wonder, should I respond by changing the section title back to "List of For Dummies books"? Would that help in "winning" the RFD here, with you, Steel1943? I'm not going to edit-war there. This is all a bit silly. Redirects are cheap; having a couple redirects to establish where a list-article / list-section is being developed is highly appropriate. --doncram 02:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Doncram, the nominator's edit diff you referenced above answered my concerns stated above in my vote. Since the section I referenced above for a retargeting option is the current section target renamed, we essentially want the redirect to target the same section. This whole conversation, in my opinion, seems more like a content dispute that really belongs on the talk page of the article, given the dispute regarding the section name. So, I essentially believe this redirect should target ... whatever the section is named when this discussion is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My apologies, Doncram, and anyone else reading this. I did not think the exact name of the redirect section mattered, and that the Keep option was of course understood to be "redirect to the appropriate section", and there's no hurry to fix it, since absolutely nothing links to the redirect. I mean, if we close as a Keep and six months from now someone changes the section name yet again, do we have to have another discussion to fix the redirect? Of course not. As it is, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this "list-article/list-section is being developed" bit you assert. A couple of books a day? Why don't you just download the publisher's list?
  • Of course redirects are cheap. But there is a list of proper reasons for a redirect, and this one doesn't meet any of them. In fact, I have a very hard time visualizing how it could ever serve a purpose. A particular title should, if linked, be linked to For Dummies. As I mentioned, "List of" links are very uncommon in the first place.
  • In the 8 years since the original List was deleted, no one has had the least bit of inclination to recreate it, until the Success AFD came up. I think that is quite telling. Choor monster (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment, repeating somewhat. It's not "telling" that there is not yet a big list of For Dummies books. I have the impression that a number of them are quite notable, including the book asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time (which was not previously mentioned in the For Dummies article). I for one was surprised there was not yet such a list, but I think I am more comfortable with the value of incomplete lists like List of Presbyterian churches. I am not terribly interested, myself, in creating a separate list-article, as indeed the publisher itself publishes a webpage list at For Dummies titles, but it seems to me that a short list of the most notable ones oughta be available. Implicitly, a "List of Things" in wikipedia is a "List of Important-Enough-To-Mention Things"; we don't have to use the qualifier "Notable" or "Landmark" in the title.
There is indeed use for having the redirects from natural list-article titles to a starter list in a section (i.e. from List of For Dummies books and from List of ...for Dummies books). This gives a heads-up to future editors that they oughta check out the section there, first, instead of proceeding with the otherwise natural step of creating a list-article separately at either of these natural titles. And it would be fine to include, in hidden comments or at Talk pages of those redirects, links to the long-ago AFD, for their information, although they and we are not strictly bound by that long-ago AFD, which was not informed by current practices with lists and views such as wp:CLT. I think you don't get that I am supporting the sense of the past AFD, that a separate list-article is not yet needed.
Again, redirects are cheap, but also don't matter very much, and I am repeating, so I may not comment further. --doncram 00:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are two kinds of WP lists. Those that list everything that meets some criterion (in which case not all items need be notable) and those that are incomplete lists, restricted to WP-notable items only (although they might not yet have an article). If you are claiming the second kind of list, then most of those items need to be deleted. Calling it "landmark" on my part was doing you a favor.
  • And as for someone wondering about creating a potential List of X, he doesn't need a redirect to be told to check out X. If I think a List of people from Xenia, Ohio might be interesting, I don't create it first, I check out Xenia, Ohio. There is a list there, and I don't do anyone any favors by creating the "List" as a redirect. Again, by admitting that you're not interested in doing the work, and have nothing to offer more than a link to the publisher, you have admitted, as far as I can tell, you were only gaming-the-system on the earlier AFD. Choor monster (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That is still all nonsense, IMHO, as I was not gaming any system. This seems a bit too much personally directed...you are seeming to accuse me as an individual, verging on violation of wp:NPA. To rebut point by point:
  1. I see you interpret my having created a redirect as gaming somewhow, but really it was just a convenient, non-controversial step, to link to where a list could naturally be created. To end what I thought was unnecessary discussion about whether a list of For Dummies books could exist and be the redirect target for that one For Dummy book title. Of course a list of For Dummies books could exist, I thought, and i put a small effort into creating a starter list of some of the more notable ones, including one asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time. Having a list did not game/fix that the one For Dummy book title should be redirected to there; it just ended discussion of whether a list could exist or not.
  2. It is often helpful for a redirect to be created at alternate name for a topic, so that a duplicative article is not started later. E.g. see ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coral Springs Museum of Art, where it turns out a duplicative article was started. One reason I created the two redirects in this case was exactly that reason, to head off someone in the future from starting a separate list-article. It is an obvious list-article to create. Someone did created a version long ago at a title variation. I myself thought to and did create a version. I am sure others have and will think of doing so.
  3. Another reason to have a redirect is that it allows the redirect to be included in categories that are not properly descriptive of the target. E.g. List of For Dummies books is now included in Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher. It could be labelled as a "redirect with possibilities", there is a template for that too, and such are accepted contributions in Wikipedia.
  4. Also it is just simply convenient to set up a redirect from the obvious title, to use in discussion rather than trying to type out "article#section title", especially when it is possible someone else might revise the section title. It is thus a useful permanent link. (It's perhaps better if the link goes to an "anchor" that is not as likely to be changed by other editors. In this case the target section title has been changed several times during this RFD.) Of course the redirect should be adjusted as needed so that it points to where it is meant to go.
  5. Redirects are cheap, and these ones serve a purpose, and are in place, and I see no Wikipedia policy or guideline suggesting that they should be deleted.
  6. I have not "admitted" anything like what you say, and your comments are amounting to badgering.
  7. I see no reasoning towards deletion besides personal-attack-type thinking, or battleground-type thinking, in editor Choor monster's comments, which seem to follow on from that editor's participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success as a Mediator for Dummies. I see badgering and other problematic participation by that editor in those discussions, too. I don't like my own responding with personal direction about the personally-directed-at-me comments. But this is relevant here as explaining Choor monster's behavior / strength of opinion here. If the closing administrator can see other merit on content/policy in this editor's views, great, but please don't seek a compromise solution to make everyone happy that puts equal weight on non-policy views, however strongly held.
I'd like not to engage further in personally-directed comments here. Please comment on the topic, not the person, at least from now on, please. Take personal issues to a personal Talk page or dispute resolution, please. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I regret that you feel my comments are a personal attack. The redirect you created still strikes me as absolutely ridiculous, serving no need, and not meeting any of WP:POFRED. The reasons you have advanced are quite spurious. As such, when bringing it up as a point in the previous AFD, it comes off as a manufactured point, a loophole, of the sort mentioned in WP:GAME. Your point 1: whether it could exist or not was silly, since that is true whether or not the redirect actually exists. Creating it was WP:POINTy. Your point 2: it is not an existing topic, so the redirect was not helpful for anyone. Your point 3: I see no WP:LIST in the article, so your category inclusion is actually misleading and ought to be deleted from the article. Since the previous List was deleted, and the deletion reasons seem as germane today as then, this is not a redirect with possibilities. And by creating this category in the middle of this RFD and then saying look at this relevant point, you strike me as again gaming. Worse, it strikes me as a terrible category: WP categories serve a different purpose than WP lists, and you are willy-nilly creating trash by converting a few categories into lists. Your point 4: not in WP:POFRED. Your point 5: completely irrelevant, as if you're hoping something is an argument. I haven't pushed the running-out-of-space panic button, so there is no need to unpush. We do delete redirects, after all. Not for the storage space, but for the reasons stated in WP:R. Your point 6: you have not created anything approaching a WP:LIST. See especially the "Development" subsection under WP:LISTPURP. You created something almost entirely of redlinks, and then missing 99% of what should be there, which this subsection says belongs outside of Main space. That is why I changed the name of the target. And the fact that you stated you are not intending to continue means you were never willing to create a WP:LIST in the first place. Your point 7: Not relevant to this RFD, I'll respond on my Talk page tomorrow. Choor monster (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
To the closer: notwithstanding what the last editor is saying (that there is no list), there is a list that the redirect goes to. Well, after i updated the redirects again to reflect the current section title. They said, much further above, that the list, a section in the For Dummies article is not "a 'list' of For Dummies books, just a short annotated list of some better sellers from the series." Right, it is there as a short list of notable For Dummies books, and is not intended by me to become a comprehensive list of all For Dummies books. I literally don't understand the editor's assertions. I and the editor are conversing somewhat on their Talk page. --doncram 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
And since you did not intend to create a WP:LIST, it was indeed created by you for the sake of making a point in an AFD discussion. That is gaming. Since it is not a WP:LIST, the very name of the redirect is misleading. Choor monster (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I opened what I hope may be a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Thoughts on lists of books by imprint or publisher. In passing it includes mention of this RFD and also of ongoing AFD about List of Amistad Press books. It's not wp:canvassing to do so (it is not biased, not at personal talk pages, is transparent) and frankly I am really seeking general discussion and feedback; please do consider contributing to general discussion there. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete If we're only ever going to have a selective list, I'm concerned that this will mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (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) 15:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jacquees[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right but there's this R&B artist that I've been following for a couple years and he has recently signed to a major record label and I want to create a wikipedia page for him in the future. When you search his name (Jacquees) on wikipedia it goes to Jacqueline (given name). The article doesn't even mention the name Jacquees so I feel like the redirect should be deleted. When you type his name in the search box it seems as if he has a wikipedia page but it just goes to Jacqueline (given name). However when you go to containing Jacquees you'll see articles where his name has actually been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neishadanielle (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 November 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Jacques as an {{R from misspelling}}, or delete since it seems that the primary, and possibly only, usage of the word "Jacquees" refers to a possibly-notable American rapper from Atlanta (as noted above). Steel1943 (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Jacques or perhaps the DAB page at Jackie as an {{R from misspelling}}. @Neishadanielle:, you don't need this deleted to create the article – just overwrite the content with the article text.
I think deleting to "create a wikipedia page for him in the future" would be a bit WP:CRYSTAL (would it? Since CRYSTAL is about potential future events outside of Wikipedia itself). Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep because it makes as much sense for it to redirect to Jacqueline as to Jacques, and it is not preventing having a page created in its place if nom wants to create one. Ivanvector (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943, with retargeting to Jacques as a second choice. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2014 (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) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

声母[edit]

Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think that topics relating to elements of languages are a reasonable exception to the rule against other-language redirects. Many English-speaking people studying Chinese, especially beginners, know what a syllable onset is called in Chinese but don't know the English term for it. Neelix (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No, Neelix, this isn't helpful. This is a generic concept seen in every language on Earth. Nearly everyone knows what a syllable is, there is no reason you need to understand a syllable onset specifically for any language. Also, we have wiktionary, which is where you go for translations. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I recommend the exception because of my personal experience; having learned English as a first language and French as a second language, there are several linguistic terms that I have only learned in French, such as Accent aigu. It just seems to me to be a detriment to the project to delete a redirect that users are likely to find useful. Neelix (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
But why can't you look it up on Wiktionary? Accent aigu is a somewhat different case since English doesn't use it, and it's actually a character used in the language, and not merely a linguistic concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You can look it up on Wiktionary. It just makes it easier for our users if they don't have to. Redirects are cheap. Neelix (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reasons have been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Certainly reasons have been presented. If you simply don't agree with them, say that. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If you're aware of a reason for deletion, please don't just hint coyly at it. State it directly. No one has stated a reason for deletion, and I can't figure any out. WilyD 12:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The concept of syllables has no specific connection with Chinese. See WP:FORRED. I took a quick look at Chinese language for an appropriate place that this could potentially retarget to, but that didn't seem practical. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:FORRED is an essay, not a guideline, and I have already presented reasons above for why we should disregard it in this case. Keep in mind that this is not a redirect to Syllable, but to Syllable#Onset. Neelix (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't get too hung up on its formal status. There are essays that express a broad consensus that develops as a result of many related discussions over time, and they're often used with the force of something stronger. WP:OUTCOMES is one, and FORRED is another. And while I appreciate you clarifying which section this points to, Chinese isn't mentioned at all in that section, so this is very likely to confuse readers who use it. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If these essays expressed broad consensus, then their supporters would have been successful in having them recognized by the community as guidelines. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but have you ever tried promoting something to a guideline? I have. People will just call WP:CREEP and say it's accepted anyway, why bother? --BDD (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if we are to lend WP:FORRED more credence than it is officially given, which I am not convinced we should, we should give even more credence to WP:CHEAP, which in my experience gets cited even more than WP:FORRED. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2014 (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) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Title (Straightener album)[edit]

I am pretty sure that no one is going to enter "Title (Straightener album)" in the search engine. If anything, this album should be linked at Title (disambiguation). Also, this redirect for a 2005 album, was created in November 2014 making it pretty clear that the only purpose of this redirect is so that Title (Meghan Trainor album) can't be moved to the appropriate name. If this was moved, there would be added a hatnote. MaranoFan (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine target to Straightener#Albums. Given that there are two (or more?) albums named "Title", Title (Straightener album) and Title (Meghan Trainor album) are both correct titles and therefore likely search terms (if anyone knows or suspects that there is more than one album with the title "title" then they will plausibly look for this title), and both should be listed at Title (disambiguation). I have no idea why the existence of this redirect has any impact on the title of any other article - if the Meghan Trainor album is the primary topic for albums called "Title" it would be at Title (album) and others linked by a hatnote (either direct or via the dab). It's creator, In ictu oculi, is a long time Wikipedian so unless you have evidence to the contrary (not immediately obvious) we should assume good faith about its creation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - what's the problem? We've a category holder in 2005 albums for ja:TITLE (アルバム) which was #23 on the Japan album chart, and there's a forthcoming album of the same name due in 2015 Title (Meghan Trainor album). Why wouldn't someone search [Title Straightener album] for Title Straightener album, what else would someone search??? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf and In ictu oculi. Also, I have gone ahead and tagged the redirect with {{R from album}} and {{R to section}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The David H. Koch Fund For Science[edit]

Delete. No evidence that the fund exists (first 5 google hits without quotes fail to find it, and a google search in quotes fails to find it), or that, if it existed, it would be in "education". Not in target article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It's listed on the PBS home page for NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ "National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers." Sometimes Google isn't very good. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

PBS is wrong about a lot of things. I suppose that's reasonable evidence that the fund exists, but it needs to be mentioned in the David H. Koch article, and there needs to be a source for its purpose other than PBS. Tentatively, if you can fix the Koch article, then the redirect would be reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rochester NY slang[edit]

Requesting deletion of the redirect, as there is nothing in the target article about slang. GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This was an unreferenced glossary of slang from Rochester, New York that was marked for merging with the article about the town in October 2006. It was converted to this redirect 5 days later, but I don't have time at the moment to find if any material was merged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    There was a very small merge performed. That content doesn't exist anymore; there are mentions of the Amerks and the Fast Ferry, but those predate the merge. WP:MAD generally means we shouldn't delete pages that have been merged, but when all of the content gets removed, it's a bit more ambiguous. There is precedent for deletion in such cases, where the merges are very old and the content is very unlikely to ever be added back. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Delete then. What was merged has long gone, and in any case it was unreferenced and stylistically average at best so it will be just as easy to reintroduce this content from new (with sources) in the event that anyone desires it (which doesn't seem particularly likely). Sourced glossaries of local slang are the sort of thing that could be covered somewhere, but not in the main article about a place and quite possibly it would be better at Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The edit history can be moved to a talk page subpage WP:MAD, which would free up the mainspace location for deletion -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf, and because it's potentially misleading. Tavix |  Talk  07:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirchner un speech[edit]

UN would be in capitals Serten (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree and Yes check.svg Done. Mhhossein (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That was hasty: With your page move, the vestige Kirchner un speech became a double redirect, the RfD tag went missing, and the RfD tag at Kirchner UN speech pointed to a nonexistent section of this page.
I've done all that (here, here and here). But it would have been simpler to create a new redirect than to move the existing one. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The original article has been AFDed, does that automatically include the redirect? Serten (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If the original article is deleted, all redirects leading to it should be speedily deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - don't seem to be any other targets. Can be disambiged in the future if necessary, but I don't see a need to be preemptive. WilyD 10:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The AfD closed as merge, and the former title now redirects straight to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. This probably should now be deleted; had the AfD closed as delete, this would've happened anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

One writer[edit]

A monograph has one subject; the number of its writers is unconstrained. This should redirect to an article about works written by single authors, if such an article exists, or else it should be deleted, as lacking any clearly appropriate target. Gorobay (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although this is a plausible search term for something, despite extensive searching I've failed to find a suitable target. We have Collaborative writing, which is the antonym of this term, but nothing for the term itself. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 21[edit]

!vote[edit]

Target unrelated to the redirect title. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#!vote John Vandenberg (chat) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • refine target. Per my comments in the last discussion this should point to where the !'s use as a negation indicator is discussed. That is the lead section of ! and !#Computers, adding a hatnote to where the Wikipedia jargon is explained. That it has been recreated so soon after the last discussion is an indication that this should not simply be deleted - people are evidently looking for this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Per featured article and the like, I will go ahead and add a hatnote to exclamation mark. “For use in Wikipedia jargon, see the [Glossary].”Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (IP replaced with username)
      • I've modified that slightly [2] - references in hatnotes to project space should use the {{self ref}} template. See the template documentation for details. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Now the hatnote exists, the lead section is the best place to target this so keep as is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I have removed that self-ref on Exclamation mark as it would be quite high in the list of worst examples of WP:NAVEL that I've ever seen. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
            • And I have restored it so that people looking for exactly that can find what they are looking for. See also below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talkcontribs)
              • And I have reverted you. We have a discussion here; if others agree with your opinion here, the closing admin can implement it. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. This was not previously deleted. What was previously deleted was a redirect to Wikipedia:Glossary, which was a cross-namespace-redirect (CNR). The present redirect is not a CNR. Instead, it redirects to another Wikipedia article which (even in its lead) discusses the use of an exclamation point for negation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (IP replaced with username)
  • Delete not an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia jargon is not generally notable, and definitely not readership material. WP:!vote is all that would be needed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:NEO. If anyone else made a redirect to promote a piece of their own jargon, we'd delete it without mercy. This was WP:MADEUP by Wikipedians, and its currency in discussions does not make it encyclopedic or a good candidate for any sort of mainspace treatment. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Except where else but Wikipedia are people going to look to find out what Wikipedia jargon means? !vote is targetted The entire purpose of {{self-ref}} is so that reusers don't include links to our behind-the-scenes content. !vote needs to either be a cross-namespace redirect to a page that explains the jargon, or have a hatnote linking to the page that explains the jargon. Feel free to tweak the wording of the hatnote, but while the redirect points at that page it needs to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • You proposed exclamation mark as a target at the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4#!vote as the very first opinion, but nobody agreed with that. They decided it was not appropriate. If you think your suggestion needs to be reconsidered, we should notify everyone from that previous discussion that this redirect is being reconsidered...? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I was notified about this discussion, and already !voted above. The whole thing is not very important, but still I strongly believe that Thryduulf is correct. The term "!vote" occurs on hundreds of talk pages, and is very common Wikipedia jargon. But when people see the term, they may not realize that it is Wikipedia jargon, and will therefore search for a Wikipedia article about the term. So why not give them an easy way to find out? Be merciful, people. Wikipedia jargon is often treated mercifully. See, for example, 3RR. It's not a huge deal either way, but I feel there's no special reason here to make Wikipedia user-unfriendly. There is already enough unfriendliness at Wikipedia (to say the least).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Thryduulf. Until we have a Glossary of Wikipedia terms. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete Unrelated. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exclamation mark has no mention of this and it should not have one (any sources about "!vote" being a interesting, notourious, case of use of '!' ?) Possibly retarget should there be a decent landing page, as this admittedly is a likely search term. - Nabla (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget, since otherwise it's very difficult to find out what this means, for technical reasons. It should read:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Straw_poll_guidelines]] {{R to project namespace}}
because that's where WP:!VOTE goes. There's a link from there to the glossary entry, for completeness. Personally, I came across !vote on a random talk page, and didn't know what the author was talking about. The only way I figured it out was by searching for !vote on Wikipedia. Google and other search engines filter out a number of punctuation marks, so if you search for "!vote", none of the Wikipedia project pages that explain it come up - you get the same results as if you had searched on "vote", which don't shed any light. If you don't already know it's related to Wikipedia, you wouldn't think to search the Wikipedia project pages specifically. I expect most people who don't know what !vote means, probably also either don't know that Wikipedia project pages exist or don't realize the Wikipedia search engine doesn't search them by default. In short, having this cross-namespace redirect is the best hope a lot of people have of looking up this term. This sort of situation is exactly we have {{R to project namespace}}. This sort of redirect is a lot less obtrusive than a whole bunch of hatnotes that link from ABC to WP:ABC, which seem fine to me, so I don't see any reason not to do a cross-namespace redirect here. -- Beland (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and self-ref hatnote the article, per Thryduulf above. This is how we normally deal with these things. As other users have said, it is quite difficult to get WP:NOTAVOTE to appear in a search result for !vote, for technical reasons. The hatnote and redirect combo provides an easy assist to new editors and doesn't negatively affect readers; the deletion arguments presented are unconvincing. Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

9-24[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target or talk. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I hear "Nine twenty-four" in the commercial and don't know what it means.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What commercial? Si Trew (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to be a commercial on heavy rotation on US radio [3][4]. The second link (search for "nine") and the edit summary when this was created ("Created redirect; I thought I was hearing "9-24"") both indicate that this is a mishearing of "non-24". I haven't been able to find the audio online after a brief search, so I can't personally speak to the plausibility, but with multiple independent reports I'd say this should be considered equivalent to a common typo. September's stats were higher than average, but there was no spike around the 24th (cf stats for September 24 and [5]) suggesting that people are not using this to look for the article on the date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. This link may be helpful.—Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
and it is Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard the same radio commercial numerous times; it was the first context in which I'd heard of this disorder, and until looking up the disorder, I thought it was "9-24 disorder" because of the announcer's enunciation. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't this all a bit WP:NOTNEWS, though? (Let alone not WP:WORLDWIDE?) Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No. What matters is the target article is encyclopaedic (which it seems to be), and that this redirect is a way people use to find it (per WP:RFD#KEEP point 5, this is the case). It is completely irrelevant whether people use this redirect because of news coverage, or whether the people using it are only from a certain geographical area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't recall hearing this ad on the radio where I am, but when spoken in an accent from the Southern U.S., I can imagine it. If it turns out that the confusing version of the ad (that sounds like "nine-24") is phased out, as I thought I read in one of the links provided, then I would lean towards deletion, unless people are liable to hear that commercial in the accent I described. But it appears to be useful at least for the fleeting moment. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Never heard it myself, I do not see how closely it is between his "non-24" pronunciation and "nine-24". I would need good WP:RS on how widespread this sentiment is to be convinced. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Requiring a reliable source discussing a specific mishearing of a specific radio commercial is massively unrealistic standard. We do not require RS evidence for redirects from typos, misspellings, misnomers or similar and this is directly equivalent to all of those. Yes we should have RS if this were to be discussed in the article, but this is not the article, just enabling people to find what they are looking for and several people have commented that they made this mishearing, and no evidence has been presented that there is a different target that is more likely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • But we do need to balance those users who have misheard, with those who have never heard it at all (e.g. me and Hisashi) and thus are dumbfounded about why it redirects there when we might be looking for something else. That's essentially my argument for deletion, R's like this can inhibit many readers finding the article they want. It's a balancing act, that's all. Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Ill formalise my !vote by saying it's WP:RFD#DELETE #2: The redirect might cause confusion. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Given we have strong evidence that this redirect is useful to people who have heard this commercial, if there are people using this redirect who are looking for something else (nobody except possibly you has commented to this effect), then the correct solution is to either disambiguate it or (more likely) add a hatnote. Deletion in these circumstances hinders everybody and helps nobody, so it is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete September 24 is the more logical target, so I guess retargeting there would be my second choice. I don't think strange pronunciation in one radio ad is a good reason for this to exist, though. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @BDD: You might think it is more logicial, but the evidence doesn't agree with you. If people were using this redirect to find the September 24 article then we would reasonably expect there to be a traffic spike to the redirect around the 24th of September similar to the one the article gets (link above). This is not the case, and from memory it is also not the case for almost all other nn-n redirects that were discussed here a couple of months back. Added to that we have several people above saying they find this redirect useful (WP:RFD#KEEP point 5) and nobody saying they were sent to the wrong target, so it isn't actually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, we don't want redirects from every weird pronunciation ever to happen once in a radio ad. - Nabla (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Smooth Island (Nunavut)[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 (non-admin closure). The page is no longer a redirect. If editors wish to suggest deletion they should propose deletion or nominate the expanded article at Articles for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete, no mention of Nunavut at target article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Nunavut does have a Smooth Island (apparently approx, 9 km from Rankin Inlet). If it's notable a new article can be created for it, but clearly the redirect from the Nunavut island article to the article for Smooth Island in Georgian Bay, Ontario is not correct. Meters (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete There are two Smooth Islands, one in Nunavut and one in Ontario. A redirect from Smooth Island (Nunavut) to Smooth Island (Ontario) is therefore ridiculous and should be deleted. Whether the Nunavut island should have its own article content is another matter. However, it is small and unpopulated, and probably don't meet WP:GEOLAND. Bazonka (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That "If it's notable" in my post was not meant as a suggestion that an article was warranted. Meters (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nunavut and Ontario are different places. From a separate discussion, it seems that in fact there may be multiple Smooth Islands in Ontario, and perhaps another somewhere around Nova Scotia, and my guess is this is a fairly common and colloquial name for unremarkable islands throughout the English world. Ivanvector (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - yeah, Nunavut isn't the same as Ontario. No prejudice to creating an article here if one can be created though. --Jakob (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Seems to be about two different locations --Lenticel (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • New content - I have significant new information about this topic. The redirect is no longer required because this is an article in itself. Please see the modifications I'm about to makeJkokavec (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made significant modifications to the article. Could you please review them?--Jkokavec (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (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.

December 20[edit]

Past, Present and Future[edit]

This also affects Past, Present & Future. If such titles are ambiguous, I see no reason to be redirected to different places other than the disambiguation page Past, Present, Future. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Per previous redirect discussion happy to leave as is. Past, Present & Future (Rob Zombie album) demands (Al Stewart album) but there is the chance someone will put "and" rather than "&" redirects can be more fussy about minor details. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • retarget both to the disambiguation page. The title is ambiguous between the two albums (titles with "&" and "and" should very rarely point to different places) and with other uses too. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget all the bare names to the disambiguation page -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Liga Postobon I[edit]

Liga Postobon I is the same as Liga Postobón (an already existent redirect to Categoría Primera A Brayan Jaimes (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Firstly this is a {{R from move}}, secondly it's getting lots of hits (130 last month for example), thirdly the existence of one redirect does not imply that another redirect is not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Iconic (Madonna album)[edit]

Since Madonna's upcoming 13th album title "Rebel Heart" has recently been announced, this redirect isn't needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Devil Prays[edit]

Page moved to "Devil Pray", the confirmed title of the song. No pages link to this redirect, so it may as well be deleted. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unneeded redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though it is just an "s" at the end, it is too unlikely of a misspelling if the song is notable without the "s". Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems like an entirely plausible search term from another grammatical form ({{R from modification}}). The article (now redirect) was at this title for the first ~18 days of its existence, which again suggests plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf but retarget to Rebel Heart (Madonna album) so that it's not a double redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unapologetic Bitch (song)[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. See Unapologetic Bitch, which currently serves as a redirect as well. No need to have a second redirect with disambiguation from the more simpler redirect. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bod klamu[edit]

sk:Bod klamu appears to be about Deception Point, so the redirect target is wrong. I don't know if there is any point in having a Slovakian redirect for a book originally written in English, so deletion may be better than correction. Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think having that word redirect to its English language article can be helpful, and is certainly more helpful than no redirect at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talkcontribs) 14:23, 20 December 2014

Lancia Hyeana[edit]

Delete: spelled incorrectly, it is confusing and misinformative because when searching it shows up before the correct redirect page (Lancia Hyena) – Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Zionist Federation[edit]

This redirect used to make sense because the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland was the only wikipedia article about a Zionist Federation. A new page has been created entitled the Zionist Federation of Australia and so it no longer makes sense to automatically redirect users to the specific Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. Aussiedownunder99 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. There are two articles that can be referred to by this title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote. This appears to be the primary target. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:3a98754db2c9b607c6f29f47e56c3717b7d7a2f8.jpg[edit]

Unexpected target. The file was only here for ten days. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as it is very unlikely that external sites have linked to the redirect over the course of 10 days. That, and the title is gibberish at best. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete meaningless name -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as gibberish Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like an automated filename generated by a camera. --Lenticel (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Ἀναιμία[edit]

Delete. Anemia is not a Greek or transliterated Ancient Greek topic. Gorobay (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFD#DELETE #8. "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". I don't wish to put words in others' mouths, but some argue (correctly) that creation and deletion are different things: and these were all created over six years ago (on 11 June 2008 by User:Neelix) and have presumably been considered harmless since. But consensus can change and I believe it has, now to ignore the "should not be created" wording. #8 is the only criterion at WP:RFD#DELETE to say anything like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Criterion #8 is not relevant to this case, because Greek is directly relevant to the etymology of the word "anemia". It traces its origins to the Ancient Greek words above, which mean "without blood" or "lack of blood". See the last sentence of the article's lead. Neelix (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The etymology doesn't make the subject Greek. The map is not the territory: the word "anaemia" is related to Greek by way of New Latin but it was only coined around 1800–10 (according to dictionary.com), so it can't be related to Ancient Greece, Ancient Greek or Ancient Greeks. Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The etymology is an important subject discussed in the article. The implied definition of relatedness in your statement seems overly circumscribed; the map is not the territory, but surely the map is related to the territory. Neelix (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The etymology is not discussed in the article. Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The base case: Etymology does not include an etymology, which I got from Wiktionary: but Old French ethimologie, Latin etymologia Ancient Greek ἐτυμολογία (etumología) are all redlinks. We're not a dictionary, therefore we're not an etymological dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Modern Greek is at el:Αναιμία but we don't have Αναιμία or αναιμία, either. Si Trew (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The etymology is discussed in the article. See the last sentence of the lead. That the redirects you mention do not exist does not demonstrate that they should not exist. Creating them does not turn Wikipedia into a dictionary; it turns Wikipedia into a more functional encyclopedia. Neelix (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The concept of anemia isn't specific to any language or culture. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The concept does not need to be specific to the Greek language; it is sufficient that the English word traces its etymology to the Greek word. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2014 (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) 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Alternate names in other languages generally aren't warranted, because it's out of place and unencyclopedic to mention other languages' versions of the same term in most cases; in this case, an etymology section wouldn't be warranted, because the anemia article focuses on the concept of anemia, to which the etymology is irrelevant. Local names of course are relevant (imagine not mentioning "Москва", the local name, in Moscow), so we include them and have them as redirects, but since we shouldn't be worrying about etymology in the anemia article, just as we wouldn't worry about the Guaraní name for Moscow, we shouldn't have the etymology of anemia as a basis for redirects to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Printer font[edit]

Does not explain the concept of device-dependent fonts � (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Computer font does a marginally better job, but only in passing so I'm not certain it's worth retargetting. It's a topic we should cover somewhere, so if we don't yet it might be best as a redlink? Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am with Thryduulf's argument, but go farther to say delete. There are plenty of devices other than printers (displays, particularly) that have device-dependent fonts (e.g. VGA-compatible_text_mode#Fonts). Computer font#Bitmap font is possible, but printer fonts may be bitmap or vector fonts.
As far as I understand it, if one selects a printer font for a device, it is the printing device that does the font rendering ( → font rasterization)from character information, rather than the computer sending the page description as a raster or set of curves. (Cheaper printers tend to do this in the computer's printer driver software rather than have expensive processors on the printer itself.)
There seems no good target, so deletion is best, to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment printers have existed before the invention of electronic computers, and some types of computer printers (ie. Daisy Wheel Printers) have fixed fonts/typefaces -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2014 (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) 15:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Golf 2[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 turn into disambiguation page for the same reasons as Golf 3. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See yesterday's discussion at 2014 October 22#Golf_3. Perhaps combine the two, as they have the same issue. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here's a link to the Wikipedia search of the term "Golf 2"; the issue, as stated in the other discussion, is that this term is possibly too ambiguous to be useful and/or all existing articles which this term could refer are partial title matches. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment my first thought about this redirect, was the submarine class, Golf II (documented in Golf-class submarine) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The sub's other variants Golf I, Golf III, Golf IV, Golf V and Golf SSQ are all redlinks.
Incidentally, I've just gone through the Rs at Volkswagen Golf I, Volkswagen Golf II etc. and retargeted some from the general Volkswagen Golf to the specific Mk (Volkswagen Golf Mk1 etc). I can't see that doing so affects this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The video games are partial-title matches and wouldn't logically be referred to simply as "Golf 2". Add the submarines to the hatnote at the target article if necessary. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2014 (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) 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Golf (disambiguation). As a search term, this is far too ambiguous to determine a primary target. It's a lazy search; let readers do some clicking to find what they're looking for. Ivanvector (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (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.

Strike(unit)[edit]

unlikely redirect or search term, superseded by Strike (unit) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per criterion R3. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - {{R from move}}, {{R from typo}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. R3 excludes redirects created from pagemoves. The page history alone shows that this is a plausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Choom Gang[edit]

If you don't follow US politics closely, you may not recall that the "Choom Gang" was the name for a group of friends including a young Barack Obama who liked to smoke marijuana together. Since the target article only mentions marijuana once, and the gang not at all, this redirect wouldn't enlighten you if you didn't already know. Since it's unhelpful and misleading to readers, I recommend we delete it. BDD (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and add in stuff about the Choom Gang. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: the group of friends is mentioned by name in Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career. It seems sensible to simply copy the sentence there to Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#Return_to_Hawaii, and if the Choom Gang redirect is kept, it would be prudent to anchor that to the subheading as an {{R to section}}, as the high school group of friends is not equivalent to the entirety of Obama's early life and career.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Xor-yost[edit]

661 hits for this on all the internets put together (thus, unlikely search term), and the term doesn't even occur on the target page. Redirect was restored in 2010 for reasons unknown to me. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - this may qualify as WP:CSD#G5 (see WP:LTA/Grawp). It was originally deleted under R1 but that is now deprecated criteria. It was restored by an admin active in the Dungeons & Dragons project, most likely innocently. However, it's an unlikely search term, not mentioned at the target, as Drmies said. Ivanvector (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

The Last Witch Hunter (2014 film)[edit]

A currently unneeded redirect and since the dab year is wrong, likely implausible as well. Film is not set for release before 2015. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually the redirect does not need to be exist, as the film is going to be released in 2015. It's simple that it should be deleted now, when we need a dab, we'd create one. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 10:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Si Trew. The stats show that this is being used, so it does need to exist. Even if it didn't need to exist, once a redirect does exist we do not delete it unless it is harmful. There is no evidence that this is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Right now, it's looking like this will be kept, though if the film ends up delayed further, the redirect would become increasingly implausible as a search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Example of low wage job[edit]

Disparaging redirect, as covered under deletion reason #3. Not likely to be useful to people looking for McDonald's. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I thought of G10, but it's probably factual in that respect. As a redirect, it's obviously not intended to be nice to anyone, and it's an implausible search term. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. This redirect could be turned into a list article if some sort, but I could see that page becoming solely a vandalism magnet. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to McJob, as does Low-wage job. If not, also Delete "Low-wage job" by the same reasoning, and perhaps McJob itself.
FWIW, it's all redlink at alternative names/punc Low paid job, Low-paid job and Low wage job.
Or retarget to Wikipedia? I get paid nothing for this! Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel ya, Jimbo owes me like, a zillion barnstars :P. --Lenticel (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I wanna be a zillionaire... (I couldn't help myself.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to McJob per Si Trew.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete; McJob is a neologism created in direct response to McDonald's business practices, whereas "Example of low wage job" clearly is not. The phrase (complete with its decidedly less-than-grammatical construction) is obviously generic, so it has no business being redirected to a specific company. As there isn't anywhere good to retarget it, it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McJob per above. No need to delete if another plausible article exists to redirect to. If McJob is a non-encyclopedic neologism, it should go to AFD and then its redirects should be deleted. But until that consensus is formed, redirecting there is the right thing. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Even setting all that aside, how many people would seriously run a search using this exact combination of perfect spelling and mangled grammar? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McJob per above. Interestingly this lists "shampooers" beneath fast food workers. Is an article on Shampooers needed? @Si Trew redirect to Wikipedia not appropriate unless the redirect was from "not paid job" or "no wage job" or some similar term. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Singling out a particular company for a disparaging purpose, when the same could apply to many other companies, is wrong and violates policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Blade of the Northern Lights. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete You cannot target one company as an example of a "low wage job", else the company can make claims of disparagement, etc. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:21, 7 December 2014 (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) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to McJob per Si Trew and others. As explained at McJob, the term is more than a neologism about a particular organization, it has become common slang for the phenomenon of low-quality jobs from any employer, thus the term is not disparaging to McDonalds and that criterion for deletion is not applicable here. Ivanvector (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Again, this isn't even a decent grammatical construction. This is why, for instance, we don't have Example of very tall building redirecting to either Burj Khalifa or skyscraper. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete since a McDonald's employee made $9,496,664 in 2013[1], I hardly consider this a "low-wage" job. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "Donald Thompson". Forbes. Retrieved 22 December 2014. 
  • Delete as the people calling for a retarget make no sense to me. This phrase isn't used in that article and it seems to me like an implausible search term. As such, deleting it is the best course of action. Tavix |  Talk  04:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Devaraja Prathapa Varma[edit]

This is an unwanted redirect. I intend to make an entire article on this topic with notability, reliable sources and in neutral point of view. Thanks. Wiki-senator 16:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You don't need the redirect to be deleted, you can just overwrite it with your article. If you want to write a draft first, then go ahead, and use the requested moves procedure when it's ready for main space. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: The redirect page is edit protected. (Why? History gives no clue, and the target itself is only semi-protected – I've just subbed it.) Perhaps hence the request here and also why it hasn't the RfD banner on it. I've subst'd an RFDNote on its talk page (I know that's not ideal). Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The history of the redirect gives an explicit reason for the protection by user:Black Kite: "Protected Devaraja Prathapa Varma: Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))" there wasn't any such happening at the redirect at that time and it looks to be a few days after an edit war at the target. I can't help more than that, but Black Kite may remember more. I've added the RfD tag but left it protected for now as I don't know if there is sitll a reason. Don't let this get in the way of any other admin removing the protection though. Thryduulf (talk)
If I remember correctly the unsourced article was being recreated under a number of different names including this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2014 (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) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ANAPROF 1988[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Soft redirect, "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Fram (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - On a totally technical note, soft redirects are supposed to be handled through WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANAPROF 1988 per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure. czar  20:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Arubans[edit]

"Notables have been removed from Aruba article. The pointer is unhelpful and misleading. Student7 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Musée des beaux-arts de Quimper[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 converted to an article. Fram (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably deserves an article, but doesn't make sense as a (double) redirect, as the target has no information on the subject. Redirecting a specific subject to a general disambiguation rarely is useful. Fram (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've created a stub for this museum, and added it to the dab page. PamD 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, @PamD:, constructive as ever! All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:25, 18 December 2014 (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.

San Francisco Sharks[edit]

I haven't been able to come up with a reference that says this team, which never played, ever went by the name Sharks. This article[6] says they were called the Seahawks, and this article[7] says they never had a name. ...William 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa[edit]

There are still many spurious redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa that need to be cleaned out. These are pseudonyms used by her husband (his article has been redirected to Dominion of Melchizedek), so they're unlikely search terms for her. Some of them additionally present WP:BLP issues. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

National Anthem Act[edit]

This name is not restricted to Canada. - TheChampionMan1234 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate to all articles covering national anthem acts of law. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question, are there any examples of other nations is an act of the same title? Chillum 08:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless there are specific examples of competing destinations I say it is fine as it is. If there are specific examples with articles then we can do something like at Constitution Act. Chillum 18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering the examples given I suggest we Disambiguate. Chillum 04:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if someone could draft what this disambiguation page would look like below the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but this somewhat confirms my fears. How many of those meet WP:DABMENTION? It's all well and good to say other countries have laws regarding their national anthems, but if we don't discuss those topics, what's the point? Navigation aides, like redirects, should be only concerned with what we already cover, not with what we should. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Most do, though most are also very brief mentions. Still, that's the info we have, and the dab page points readers to the info they're looking for, either the page on national anthems generally, or the page on the anthem of a particular country which uses this name for its defining statute. It's worth noting that all of these articles have informative external links. In other cases, for example Star Spangled Banner and God Save the Queen, the statutes defining their status are not known as "National Anthem Act", so I didn't include them. I doubt we'd actually be able to write articles for any of these Acts separate from the anthems they refer to. Japan seems to be an exception. I wouldn't write an article about Canada's National Anthem Act, it makes more sense to discuss it in the O Canada article (which we do). Ivanvector (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm wary of redirects that point to only trivial mentions. And I don't think this is a good candidate for a WP:CONCEPTDAB. But perhaps a short section at National anthem (#Legislation ?) on the legal establishment and recognition of national anthems? We could then redirect this there, and link to articles where the concept is better developed as a way of giving examples. --BDD (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 638[edit]

Delete all. These redirected to a section of the list that listed seven different routes as if they were one continuous route (and which I spent several minutes trying to locate before I realized they were discontinuous). I removed the section because all but the one in Scott County are very minor roads (in Virginia, practically every public road has a state route number, and numbers over 600 are only unique within a county). So now these redirect to nowhere. (I wrote a better description for the one in Scott County, so did not list those redirects here.) NE2 04:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget Virginia State Route 638 to List_of_secondary_state_highways_in_Virginia#SR_638 (Scott_County); Delete the rest. Add courtesy comment and anchor at target per WP:SPECIFICLINK. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There are other potentially important ones in Clarke, Fairfax, Hanover, and Westmoreland Counties, some of which might not end up redirecting to this list. The best solution would be a disambiguation, but some do-gooder would probably redirect it because it only has one blue link. --NE2 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question is the a scope for a Virginia State route 638 list or set-index article? This is the sort of information that Wikipedia can provide well. I'll drop a note for the folks at the US Roads Wikiproject about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - List of secondary state highways in Virginia is currently a sloppy mess incomplete RCS list of secondary roads in Virginia. These secondary routes are generally not notable enough for individual articles in the same vein as most county routes. What should be done, however, is to create by-county lists for secondary routes as these routes are notable enough to be covered in a list. List of county routes in Camden County, New Jersey can serve as a model for how the lists can look like, as the notability and numbering pattern of the Virginia secondary routes is very similar to New Jersey county routes. For the record, some CRs in New Jersey cross county lines but are covered in the seperate county lists per county as opposed to being lumped together. Dough4872 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - splitting multi-county routes by county is a silly practice that should not be done here (and actually isn't in New Jersey for the 5xx routes). --NE2 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The difference between the 500 and 600 routes in New Jersey is that the 500 routes are a statewide system while the 600 routes are only unique to a specific county. It just happens that some counties coordinate their numbering to have like-numbered routes meet at county lines. Virginia appears the same way with secondary routes. Dough4872 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Not exactly. Virginia deliberately made the secondary numbers match at county lines, to the point of renumbering routes when they were extended (over a former primary) into another county. --NE2 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
          1. The notability of secondary state highways in Virginia should be discussed in its own thread at WT:USRD instead of piggybacking here.
          2. The List of secondary state highways in Virginia has a lot of non-notable routes because I did not take the time to think about the notability of these routes when I merged them into the list a few years ago; my goal was only to get rid of stubs. I suspect most of these secondary state highways are not notable, but we can discuss more elsewhere.  V 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
            • ?? The whole point of merging into lists like this is to avoid questions of notability. --NE2 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • keep all road names should be accounted for72.24.156.34 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Most refer to roads which aren't discussed on Wikipedia, and the ones without qualifiers are problematic, as explained by the nominator. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (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) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tadsch Mahal[edit]

No connections with German. - TheChampionMan1234 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The argument is that there is no affinity with German, and I think it's consensus now that WP is not a (translation) dictionary.
Additionally, it is not mentioned at the target. So anyone using this redirect unexpectedly (e.g. if hidden under a pipe) wonders how they got there. Those using it expectedly might be surprised, too. Even the German :de:Tadsch Mahal is an R to de:Taj Mahal, so presumably the correct German term is indeed "Taj Mahal".
Which readers? Stats show a mean average of three hits a week. The redirect de:Tadsch Mahal exists with a mean average of 4 13 hits/day. The article de:Taj Mahal has a mean average of 385 35 hits/day. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact unrelated to the discussion at hand. Similarly, although it's true that Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, that statement has nothing to do with this redirect. Three readers a week is not a ton, but that there's only a few of them is no reason to make the encyclopaedia harder for them to use where there's no apparent encyclopaedic benefit. WilyD 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The Taj Mahal has an inherent connection with some languages of India, and perhaps Arabic, Persian, or some other regional languages. German is not one of those languages. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • keep not everyone knows how to spell these exotic names, please don't delete...72.24.156.34 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2014 (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) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a plausible misspelling if you're trying to use English, and nobody's going to know this spelling unless they know German. If you know how it's spelled in German, you can search the German Wikipedia. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the subject is located in India, an English-speaking locality in a region that was not under German control, therefore there is no affinity for German. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yumiko Fukushima[edit]

This redirect should be redirected, since Yumiko Fukushima is Ichiro Suzuki's spouse, and unlike Ichiro Yumiko is not a baseball player, and the current redirect page would trouble readers since the article Ichiro Suzuki has a link Yumiko Fukushima RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep (I'm assuming you meant "This redirect should be deleted") This is standard procedure for a spouse who isn't independently notable; we even have the {{R from spouse}} tag for such redirects. If there's a circular link at the target article, that's easily dealt with—just remove it. --BDD (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Valley of the Sun Bowl[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Improbable search term. Only history is double redirect fixes. Tavix |  Talk  05:31, 17 December 2014 (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.

December 16[edit]

Autism Research Institute[edit]

I'd like to suggest that the redirect be re-targeted to the "Autism Research Institute" section of the article for its founder, Bernard Rimland. The current redirect was established when the article for Autism Research Institute was replaced by one for its former initiative, Defeat Autism Now!, as ARI was found not to be "notable", whereas DAN! was. DAN! was discontinued in 2011, but the ARI continues to be an active organization with many initiatives. Since there's a section in Rimland's article that provides an overview of ARI (albeit with a few issues that do need fixing), this seems like the more natural place for the redirect to be targeted than an initiative that is no longer current and does not fully explain ARI. If the redirect is moved, the DAN! article should include a link to the ARI section in Rimland's article (which it currently does not), and likewise, there should be a link from Rimland's article back to DAN!. Please note that I work for the ARI, so I'm bringing this for discussion rather than making any edits to the DAN! or Rimland article myself. Also, just to be cautious and not edit directly due to my conflict of interest, I've not added the redirect discussion template to the DAN! article but will ask on that article's talk page for someone to add that. Difulton (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: I have added the template to the redirect. Previous recent discussions on this topic here (AfD) and here (extant orgs noticeboard), as well as extensive discussion at Talk:Defeat Autism Now!. Ivanvector (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Swap article/redirect, i.e. delete this redirect and move Defeat Autism Now! to this title, and expand that article into one about the organization. The ARI seems to be a borderline notable organization based on the outcomes of previous discussions. Their Defeat Autism Now! program was probably more notable at one time but it was notable for having been famously ignorant, and the organization seems now to have acknowledged that. I disagree with merging either of these articles to the founder's article because of that - the organization seems now to be moving toward more mainstream scientific pursuits in the fight against autism, or at least they have stopped promoting Rimland's fringey views. Ivanvector (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Protesters (disambiguation)[edit]

Suggest deletion, because "protesters" is not a likely search term for anything listed at the target. Siuenti (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

David Brownschidle[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly absurd redirect. Subject is NN one-time college hockey player whose connection to the parent article is that (along with several dozen other players) he scored a point in said tournament. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of ignoring notability standards, and creating NN articles and implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Not an appropriate redirect per above. Better served by being a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Inappropriate redirect. Only purpose, given the creating editor's history was to tag the first edit in the event the player did gain notability. Resolute 19:46, 17 December 2014 (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.

Ivan Kaustin[edit]

Implausible redirect. No evidence that this is a common misspelling. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep It transposes two letters in a way that makes the name more pronounceable, at least to my ear. I don't see anything wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure on this one...probably leaning towards what BDD mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. To my ear too "Kaustin" is an easier pronunciation and more expected spelling than "Kasutin". Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Brutlag[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible redirect. Subject played a single season of low-minor league hockey, with no obvious connection with the parent article. Not mentioned at all in parent article. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating NN articles and implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a good redirect per above. Better served as a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Inappropriate redirect, no strong relationship to targeted article. Only purpose, given the creating editor's history was to tag the first edit in the event the player did gain notability. Resolute 19:46, 17 December 2014 (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.

Job system[edit]

This redirect is rather ambiguous. It may be able to be converted to a disambiguation page that lists different types if job systems, such as employment systems in company, etc. However, I'm not sure where to start with that task. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Job (disambiguation). I think job (as in work) and job (as in unit of work in a computer) may be plausible targets.--Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget Wikipedia is not the Final Fantasy Encyclopedia, there are so many other meanings for this, even in videogames. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget Character class might be another possible target, but at the very least do not point exclusively to anything FF. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 16:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Too vague. The phrase doesn't naturally lend itself to anything listed at Job (disambiguation). Retargeting to Character class would be my second choice. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2014 (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) 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Character class which seems to be the intended meaning. As a more popular but less desirable option, retarget to Job (disambiguation) where I have now added a clumsy reference to this. Ivanvector (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, my change to the dab page was reverted. Retarget to Character class with an other-uses hatnote. All of the incoming links (there aren't many) are video game related. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lightning in a tropical cyclone[edit]

Lightning isn't mentioned at all on the target article. This used to be an article itself, but it was quite minimal and of dubious notability. I recommend deletion, but I wouldn't object to restoring the article and perhaps letting it go to AfD. I do object to the status quo. (Pinging Cyclonebiskit, who redirected the article and seems to be a very active editor on the topic.) BDD (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • cyclones are mentioned on the Lightning page, but only in a definition. That does link to Mesocyclone which talks about thunderstorms in the lead and includes a picture with lightning. I'm no subject expert so can't comment on whether Mesocyclones are at all related to tropical cyclones though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Tropical cyclones are cyclones (of course) but according to our articles and some Googling, mesocyclones are distinct from tropical cyclones (I'm also no expert in this). There is some indication that the rarity of lightning in the core of a tropical cyclone (versus other cyclonic storms) is noteworthy, so there probably should be something in the tropical cyclone article that mentions it, and if there was then this redirect would be appropriate. However, we should wait to hear from someone with more knowledge of meteorology. Ivanvector (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - As long as lightning is not mentioned on tropical cyclone, then the redirect is inappropriate, in my opinion. While lightning is rare in the inner core of a tropical cyclone, it does exist, and it is more prevalent in the outer bands of tropical cyclones. And just to confirm what Thryduulf said, mesocyclones are distinct from tropical cyclones. Personally, I do not think the tropical cyclone page needs to talk about the rarity of lightning, because it fluctuates from storm to storm and strikes me (no pun intended) as something more trivial than noteworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It was Ivanvector rather than me who noted the distinction, but thanks for the comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My expertise in meteorology isn't tropical weather, but, to my knowledge, there isn't anything really special about "Lightning in a tropical cyclone", so the redirect in question here (if it should even exist in the first place, since there really aren't any articles that are linking to it right now) should be redirected to Lightning. Note: A mesocyclone is not the same thing at all as a tropical cyclone. Guy1890 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (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) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Guy1890. If I'm understanding correctly, there is nothing at all unique about lightning that occurs in a tropical cyclone, so redirecting to our article on lightning is the most appropriate action. Ivanvector (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Guy1890 and Ivanvector, the only mention of a cyclone at Lightning is a link to mesocyclone. Will retargeting there do anything but disappoint a reader using this as a search term? --BDD (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that should be updated to say something like: "...near the mesocyclone of rotating thunderstorms and rarely in the outer rain bands of tropical cyclones, and coincides..." - assuming that the mechanism (lightning resulting from intensification of updrafts) is the same in both types of storm. As far as I can tell it is, but that's really a question for the experts. Ivanvector (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A thunderstorm isn't thunderstorm without any lightning. In other words, there's no such thing as a thunderstorm that occurs without any lightning. A cyclone is really just a another way of saying the word "storm". There are different scales of storms though. Smaller-scale storms (usually within an individual & well-developed thunderstorm - one that is rotating at a decent speed) are called mesocyclones. Not all thunderstorms really rotate in nature, but many do. The "meso" in the word mesocyclone can refer to scales of motion as small as within one thunderstorm to as large as much larger groups of many thunderstorms. The storm that caused rain or snow recently where you live can also be a type of cyclone, like a winter storm. Tropical cyclones cover a range of larger-scale storms that occur almost exclusively in the tropics, like tropical storms, hurricanes, etc.. Within these types of larger-scale storms are obviously individual or groups of thunderstorms, many of which can rotate violently, causing various types of severe weather.
The lightning Wikipedia page has been in need of updating for a while now - it's my long list of things to do, but I unfortunately haven't gotten around to do much work on it recently. Wikipedia probably disappoints a lot of readers when it comes to scientific information. This is just my personal opinion as a meteorologist, but a lot of the theories around lightning don't have a huge amount of solid research behind them. Guy1890 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So my proposed edit would not help, then, and probably that section needs to be rewritten by someone who knows what they're talking about. So as far as we understand it, there isn't any difference between lightning generally and lightning in a tropical cyclone, except that the latter happens to occur in a tropical cyclone, yes? In that case, a user searching for "lightning in a tropical cyclone" is going to find the information they're looking for at lightning, whether they expect it or not. It's outside my expertise to rewrite the article appropriately. Ivanvector (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"there isn't any difference between lightning generally and lightning in a tropical cyclone, except that the latter happens to occur in a tropical cyclone, yes?" As far as I know (and again I'm not an expert in tropical meteorology), no - there really isn't much of a difference there. There might be some research into the polarity (negative vs. positive - I think it's safe to say that most lightning recorded by cloud-to-ground lightning detection networks is negative) & the distribution of lightning in a tropical system though. I still think that the redirect here should be to our lightning article. Guy1890 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Ivan, I see where you're coming from here. But from what I gather, the idea was never that lightning behaves differently in a tropical cyclone, but that it's very rare for such lightning to show up. And I think a reader using this search term is more likely asking about the specific occurrence of lightning in a tropical cyclone rather than the general properties of lightning. Certainly anyone who tried the search term and didn't get results could go to Lightning, either in the search results or as a matter of common sense. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

民主進歩党[edit]

Japanese shinjitai isn't relevant. - TheChampionMan1234 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@John123521: No, because Chinese speakers type using an input method editor and they are more likely to make typos like 民主金怒當, if they press the wrong pinyin key. --- TheChampionMan1234 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's for the pronounciation-based IMEs. There are also a sizable population that uses shape-based IMEs like the Cangjie input method, which gives different sets of possible typos. Again, 歩 qualifies here (same Cangjie code 卜中一竹), but 党 is still too far-fetched. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I see where Thryduulf is coming from, but I just don't feel comfortable with typos in foreign-language redirects. In many cases, it's going to be very difficult to tell what something is a typo for, and a typo in one language may actually mean something in another language. This is also a problem with foreign-language redirects generally. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean with "typo"? This is how the party's name usually is written in Japanese. I'm not sure that it is useful to have Japanese-language redirects for Taiwanese political parties. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per BDD, typo redirects in a foreign language is far fetched - Nabla (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Oh! Probably not a typo, but a redirect to an entity from a language (Japanese) which is foreign both to the entity and to the English language WP. I'm also sure we do not need redirects from every language (though we'd appreciate interwikis to every language :-), so, still _delete_ - Nabla (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. We don't need foreign language typos of this nature. Tavix |  Talk  03:08, 16 December 2014 (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) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. If they are used on an official website, then they are a reasonable search term and the redirect should be left. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stanisław Skarżyński[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (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.

Chuckie Finch[edit]

These are two redirects that point to someone who isn't on this page anymore. The person that these redirects are referring to is C. J. Fick, but I don't think they should be retargeted there because they are incorrect and implausible search terms. Tavix |  Talk  03:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tavix, could you clarify? You said "The person that these redirects are referring to is C. J. Fick", so I'm sure that's why Oiyarbepsy suggested that course of action. Is there also a Chuckie Finch/Fink? --BDD (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the person that was on the St. Louis Cardinals minor league players page, C. J. Fick. Someone decided to create these redirects to the minor league page, referring to C. J., even though these names are incorrect (meaning that these aren't his name, he doesn't go by "Chuckie" and his last name isn't "Finch" or "Fink"). They need to be deleted because they are so far incorrect that it isn't helpful for anyone to have them retargeted to C. J.'s page. And no, there isn't anyone named Chuckie Finch/Fink as far as I'm aware. Tavix |  Talk  21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Frankenstein (UK TV miniseries)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the target was never was or planned to be a miniseries. Also, there seems to be no retargeting options for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (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.

[edit]

I'm not sure if this requires deletion, exactly. But the section "Unicode" no longer exists and I think the redirect needs a different target. If we can't find one, delete, I suppose. NYKevin 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or restore the unicode section to the article. It's not clear to me why it was removed. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove section redirect, and keep. It's a valid Unicode redirect, as tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous_Symbols which explains what it is as well as what it means (or restore the unicode section to the article). Siuenti (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, per standard practice for other Unicode characters. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Welfare check[edit]

The typical meaning of welfare check is when police officers known on a door to see if the resident is okay. I don't see this redirect as appropriate, and if there is no reasonable new target, I would say delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment in American English, a "check" is a "cheque" (British English) as in an instrument of monetary transfer. So this doesn't only mean a police officer coming and checking the wellbeing of a person at risk, it also means the cheque in the mail that transfers monetary funds from the government to the recipient. Indeed, our article welfare queen uses the term "welfare check" in the manner of an instrument of monetary transfer. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment.Yea, "Check" here is genuinely ambiguous between American and British English, you can blame Noah Webster (I do). A rain check is not to check if it is raining, for example. I thought of Giro#Cultural significance, but that is not helpful for Our American Cousin. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Welfare (disambiguation). Not sure about that, but "Welfare" in my view is quite US-centric, the term "Welfare" I assume is primary is not used in British English. By analogy, Dole Br. Eng.) is a DAB with Unemployment benefits at third and Welfare at fourth entry. Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "welfare" is also used in Canadian English, so not just US English. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment That definition seems to be more commonly known (and less ambiguously) as "police welfare/wellness check"? [9] [10] [11] 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: around these parts, "welfare cheque" ("check" for our friends across the lake) is a somewhat derogatory term for social assistance payments used by folks who align with the politics of our infamous soon-to-be-former mayor to denigrate the people who receive such payments. As a hideous example, "the Beer Store is packed today, must be welfare cheque day". Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but I suggest that this meaning or the one suggested by Oiyarbepsy are both inappropriate POV for the encyclopedia and should simply be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, it should retarget to welfare queen as that is the pejorative implication of the term. In my experience, anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I missed your pipe: "across the lake" I assumed you meant the Atlantic Ocean and actually you piped "Lake Ontario". Deliberately I said "US-centric" because the target didn't mention Canada at all. Is "cheque" how it would be written in Canadian English? I went out with an Ontarian for seven years, but she didn't never wrote out "cheque". Signed a lot of mine, though. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "cheque" is used in Canada to refer to the instrument of monetary transfer[12][13], while "check" is used to refer to verification. But you can also find "check" used to refer to cheques in Canada. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There's something I didn't know: if you add a capital V the link to my userpage breaks. Should we redirect User:IvanVectorUser:Ivanvector?? Ivanvector (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) not a serious suggestion
Wow, I wonder how that happens. SDoesn't break for me, I just get redlink. Sorry about that, Victor. :) Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several possible meaings, and it would seem confusing to redirect to any one of them. Possibly there is some way to disambiguate. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Police knocking on doors to see if residents are okay is something different from government provided welfare and basic health. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not a good reason to delete... ansh666 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - there have been a lot of comments above and good discussion, but we're all tripping around the fact that we don't have an article for many of the suggested meanings, but keeping this redirect as-is gets readers to the information they're looking for, even if they might need more clicks if they want more specific information. There is a Welfare (disambiguation) but I think the redirect is best as-is, for the same reasons. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Even absent the police term, we don't seem to discuss actual welfare checks, the means of transferring welfare benefits, anywhere. "Welfare check" and "welfare queen" may both be pejorative terms, but I don't think they're at all equivalent. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (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) 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

North American Football League[edit]

Confusing since the "North American Football League" is a former American Football league (see, e.g., Huntsville Rockets) and is the name of a future American Football league (see, naflenterprises.com). Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it you are proposing? The NASFL of the 1940s was also known as the NAFL, hence the redirect. It's a plausible search term and valid redirect, so I don't think deletion is appropriate. The other two NAFLs you mention do not appear to have an article, so they can't be redirected to. Until there is something else to which this could be targeted, then I think the redirect should be kept. TDL (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Off topic, but "soccer football" is redundant, since "soccer" is a contraction of "association football". I imagine that was known by the founders, though. I scream alone. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The term is not discussed at article, but that can be added as per Frietjes' comments. The distinction between the NFL and the NAFL is important. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2014 (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) 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per TDL. If/when there are other targets then a hatnote can be provided at the target or the redirect converted to a disambiguation page, but the other article(s) need to be created before that can happen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

디지털 포트리스[edit]

Delete. This is not a Korean book. Gorobay (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact it seems that many Dan Brown novels have similar redirects; e.g. for Angels and Demons [14]. Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all these translated titles. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Dan Brown writes for the English language marketplace. There's no affinity for any language other than English. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason for deletion has been presented, and it would needlessly screw over the readership. WilyD 11:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keeep - harmless and not new. All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete all per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (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) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese reunification[edit]

This should point to an article about the actual event, compare with German reunification, etc, I cant seem to find a good target. - TheChampionMan1234 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The redirect works as intended. Per WP:POFRED: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." I've added a {{R to related topic}} to make that more obvious. There's no point redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. If you want to create an article specifically about on the historical event of 1976, great; or post a request for it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. (I would suggest not that "Vietnamese reunification" should redirect to that article, but rather that it should actually be the title of it.) But as long as there is no article, the title of the missing article should redirect to the closest approximation. The article Reunification Day has a synopsis of the historical event as well as details on the commemoration. jnestorius(talk) 11:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled AC/DC album[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible search term to a broken section header that will perpetually need to be revised as long as AC/DC release albums. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:HAMMER. We could retarget this to AC/DC discography#Albums but as none of the albums listed there are untitled, this doesn't help anyone. If they do release an untitled album then this would likely be covered at Untitled (AC/DC album), and this would make a good redirect to such an article, but as there is no such album this redirect should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (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.

Adamantine, Minas Gerais[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

An assertion has been made that the redirect is an alternate spelling/pronunciation of the name of the target municipality. I declined speedy deletion as inapplicable, but am taking to redirects for discussion if anybody wants to make a case for deletion. It is not implausible, so I would not have any problem with this redirect remaining. Safiel (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that Diamantina is known as Adamantine - I have never heard it called that and cannot find any reference (except mirrors of Wikipedia - only the english one) to it being so called. There is a municpality in São Paulo called "Adamantina" (with the more likely portuguese "a" termination) but not in MG. I suspect (it's just a guess) that this arose through a translation of some portuguese text on the town into english and the proper name got translated by mistake at the same time. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2014 (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.

December 12[edit]

Ὁ ὁρίζων[edit]

Delete. The horizon isn’t particularly related to Ancient Greek. Gorobay (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - discussed at target, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The concept of a horizon isn't specific to any language or culture. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the term is partially mentioned in the article minus the "Ὁ" --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the concept of the horizon is not restricted to Greece, no particular affinity for Greek. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it is related to Ancient Greek, as that is the origin of the word, it's still not an exact match. It's partially there, per User:Lenticel, but not quite. Because of this, deleting it is likely the best option.Tavix |  Talk  03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bahomet[edit]

Per the numerous hatnotes placed on the three different articles Baphomet, Bahamut ‎and Behemoth, either the redirect's creator or other editors believed that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these subjects. However, after doing a search on a search engine for this term, not including the first result (which is a link to its current target), there are no results anywhere proving that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these articles. For that reason, I believe that this redirect should be deleted for being inaccurate and/or ambiguous as it could refer to one of multiple subjects. (I don't believe that creating a disambiguation page would be helpful since I could not find any proof that this is a common misspelling for any of the aforementioned terms.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion. A simple Google search turns up numerous uses of "Bahomet" as a variant or misspelling of "Baphomet", so redirecting is useful. I have no opinion on the utility of disambiguating the other terms. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not the case; Google returns results for "Baphomet" instead of "Bahomet" since it thinks that it is a misspelling for it. It even at the top specifically states that it is doing this, and allows the option to search "Bahomet" instead. This just proves the existence of bad search results thanks to Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If you actually search for "Bahomet" directly, though, rather than simply talking about it, you will find that most such results aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Besides, while it's very bad for Wikipedia to propagate careless errors, an established error simply is an established error, regardless of where it originated. I don't think this misspelling originated on Wikipedia, but it doesn't matter; it's in use and we should help people find the accepted spelling by redirecting from the common incorrect one. Besides, doesn't the fact that Google regards this as a plausible typo support the assertion that it is a plausible typo? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen quite a few cases where a bad redirect in Wikipedia has resulted in several misspelled search results in any search engine, regardless if the redirect is correct or not (spelling, or otherwise). I dealt with an example/redirect recently that had that very issue: Hujk. Thanks to the fact that the redirect targeted an inaccurate target for 7 years, there are some sites that are permanently going to believe that term stands for "Nintendo"; I see this redirect having similar issues. Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral according to my Google Books search, "Bahomet" is a corruption of the word "Mahomet" which in turn refers to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. However, there are writers that do use "Bahomet" to refer to "Baphomet". Um, I think I accidentally summoned a goat demon while doing the search--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Too generic to be disambiguated. - TheChampionMan1234 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate we already have multiple topics this is an alternate spelling for listed in this discussion. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The main issue that I see with this option is that I'm not sure how notable of an alternate spelling this is for any of the topics; this seems more like a situation of "Wikipedia has this misspelling set up as a redirect, so it must be an acceptable alternate spelling". As I stated above, the fact that this redirect has existed targeting its current target unchanged for over 7 years probably hasn't helped matters either. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above though, it doesn't matter if the alternative spellings originated with Wikipedia or not (nobody has given any evidence that proves the claim either way), they are now seen as accepted alternative spellings so we do readers a disservice by deleting these redirects. This means we should keep or disambiguate to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't exactly say disambiguate, but there's probably an actual article to be had here, which I'd find very interesting. I mean, a conflation of Muhammad with pagan gods and mythological figures? I don't believe there isn't scholarship on that. See Mohammedan for a good example of an article on an archaicism. Hindoo is probably the best one-sentence article on the entire Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, weak keep. With just one letter missing, this is a more likely typo for Baphomet than the other contenders. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict prevention[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 delete. -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Falls under WP:RFD#D10. Conflict prevention is completely different from conflict resolution, conflict resolution contains no info on conflict prevention. According to D10, that means it's better off as a redlink. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (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) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (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.

Sam Basile[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an inappropriate and improbable redirect -- homonymous misspelling of the infamous "Sam Bacile"; only problem is that there is a real-life person with the name "Sam Basile" who died this year (see here). Quis separabit? 03:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - sensible redirect given context. I don't understand the "inappropriate and improbable" argument. As for the late Mr. Basile, we simply can't account for all of the non-notable people who have names similar to Wikipedia topics, nor should we. Ivanvector (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"[S]ensible redirect given context" -- no, most likely a typo. Second, Sam Bacile is the writer and promoter of Innocence of Muslims, the anti-Islamic video that caused significant trouble for denigrating Islam; no one misfortunate enough to have a similar or homonymous surname should be forced to be affiliated in any way with the imbecile, er Bacile. Quis separabit? 20:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how it's a typo, unless you mean because the video was posted to Youtube under the account "sam bacile" (no caps) in which case it's an {{R from alternate capitalization}}. The target is the confirmed real identity of Sam Bacile, so the redirect makes complete sense. Ivanvector (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, therefore "Sam Basile" should be removed as redirect. Quis separabit? 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
So is the nomination wrong? You nominated Sam Bacile for discussion here. I'll support deleting Sam Basile as a matter of WP:BDP if that's what you meant. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, my mistake -- I meant "Basile" and that was the speedy RFD request I originally made (see [15]). I fixed it (hopefully correctly) above. Sorry and thanks for alerting me, Quis separabit? 22:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Glad we straightened that out :) Ivanvector (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Ivanvector's argument, as {{R from misspelling}}. If it's unfortunate for those named "Sam Basile", it must be doubly so for others named "Sam Bacile", yet no-one' suggesting deleting or retargeting that. Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No. My erroneous misspelling was corrected. @Ivanvector posted that he supports "deleting Sam Basile as a matter of WP:BDP". That is why he struck his keep vote. Quis separabit? 18:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Si, you may have seen this and still favor keeping, but could you clarify whether that's the case? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (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) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear me, that requires me to think. I think I can think, but oddly it keeps putting things in different sections and not because of ce so this could go anywhere and I am trying to keep it as an anchor. So this is in itself meaningless (which means I can say oh my word zebras could be more colourful, and why don't ferris wheels go anticlockwise, or basically anything, cos it will end up on a search about why zygotic inflammation leads to parenchymal visceral clitorides and woo hoo organic marsupial vegetation). Right so I should have a decent anchor when My Favourite Search Engine loses the lot. Remember, Remember marsupial vegetation. But that is such a large subect. Eucaluyptus. Damn Wikipedia! Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Now after that stream of unconsciousness es:Basilio el Grande is possible, but in English the art is Basil of Caesarea (one of the theven theditioth thcribeth of theatharia?) "San Basil" gives that on a search, so perhaps it should go there, but the confluence of a basilica which has nothing to do with basil (name) makes me wonder if I should take the price bet or put it on the nose/ (really our coverage of betting topic is awful. Even betting shop is awful, and I tried to do something about it.) Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2014 (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.

Directorate-General for Budget[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 move Directorate-General for Budget (European Commission) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Avery generic title redirected to a specific title for a single organization. Not a good idea; will surely produce problems in time. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and swap redirect and target. A google search finds that there is a Directorate-General for Budget in the European Commission, Portugal [16], Austria [17] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [18]. The first of these is the only one that we have an article on, and the one that is by far and away the primary topic. Indeed it was only by excluding "European Commission" that I found the others, and of those only the one in Portugal seems potentially notable enough for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert to list article listing the various governmental entities, and how the generic form relates to other names found in other governments -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2014 (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) 13:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Swap per Thryduulf. I never thought I might one day agree with Thryduulf, but he is talking sense. I guess I just thank God for it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Swap per Codename Lisa. And, er, the other one.Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
67.50, there is no point suggesting a list unless you make one as an example. I think I have had two draft DABs being converted over an R here lately because I made a draft. Another couple I think were not done, I don't remember the fails. Someone has to make it so why not make it and then say "there is this draft here". I don't mean by any way to make it a fait accompli but it's sometimes easier to argue against a concrete example than an abstract one. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2014 (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.

Ae Guk Gah[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible search term, the same term without the H at the end is somewhat plausible as an alternative romanization, but that could also refer to Aegukka as its the same term in its original language - TheChampionMan1234 10:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • strong keep this has existed uncontroversially and harmlessly since 2005(!), and it gets lots of traffic (over 100 hits in June and September for example), so there needs to be a very good reason to delete this and I can't see any reason (it looks perfectly plausible to me), let alone a sufficiently good one. Given this has existed so long many google hits are Wikipedia-derived (which is another indication that we shouldn't just casually delete this), and filtering them out isn't easy but I have found some that appear to be independent, including ones which describe the pronunciation of the last syllable as "gah". There is already at hatnote to Aegukka so potential ambiguity is already dealt with (not that it would be a reason to delete anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Strong Keep. What the how's your father is eye dialect. Your eyes suddenly have a tendency to pronounce words? It is nonsense and you know it. If it means anything, it is what in English we call "spelling" or "speaking" or "hearing. A nonce term if I signed one.
It is well-known and authority from Fowler, Patridge, et al. that English written and English spoken are more apart than they are in e.g. Spanish or Hungarian which is speak-as-you-spell (because of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Spanish Language Academy telling someone how to speak as they spell. Fat lot of good that will do. See English as she is spoke. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (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.

Windows X[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 retarget with hatnote. -- Beland (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate as I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks of X-Windows when they see "Windows X", and the MicroSoft OS is not X but Windows 10. I've seen Xwin referred to as "Windows X" and "Windows/X" before, and the usenet group is "comp.windows.x" ; not to mention that "x" is also used as a fill-in-the-character on Wikipedia article names (such as Windows 9x), so this can be construed to mean "Windows #", where # is a value to be filled in; and as a mispelling of Windows XP. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget to List of Microsoft Windows versions and add a {{redirect|Windows X|the windowing system often called X Windows|X Window System|other uses|Windows (disambiguation)]] hatnote to that page. This is where people meaning "any version of windows" want to get, gives one click access to anyone typoing "Windows XP" and anyone meaning "X Windows". Everyone else is catered for by the dab page link. We could point straight to the dab page, but then people wanting any specific version of Windows would have to via the main Microsoft Windows article, where the list of versions isn't especially prominent, and I really don't think this is a likely search term for people wanting that article - but if I'm wrong on this last part it's linked from the first sentence of my proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that option (retarget to MS Win versions list, adding hatnote for X-win) I am the nominator -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have a "Windows X" which is as obscure as this strange name for Windows 10. (Its a skin for previous versions of Windows that makes them look like Windows 10.) None of these have due weight for having any sort of advert or coverage on Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • retarget to List of Microsoft Windows versions per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (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.

Alabahmu[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 keep. The original version of this page says: Native Choctaw word from which the State of Alabama receives its name, meaning approximately, "here we may rest." I added it to the list of transliterations in the article, and requested a source from the editor who wrote that. No harm in keeping an extra redirect from transliteration if it doesn't pan out, or we could delete it later. -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Name isn't mentioned at target, and invalid {{R from misspelling}} - TheChampionMan1234 08:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a perfectly valid eye-dialect spelling of the target article name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Which dialect, Thryduulf? I'm saying it in my head, and it doesn't sound like any accent I've heard of. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Stereotypical generic deep south, with the terminal "u" representing schwa. This is though coming from someone with English ears who is unfamiliar with the actual pronunciations used in the deep south. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'd think of that as more like "Alabamuh". I'm not sure about this, though; it seems like a rather unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This just seems too implausible to me, either as a misspelling or a conscious search term. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirects like this, if they actually are eye dialect, serve no purpose but to mock those who say it. Also, the final a is a schwa in pretty much all varieties of English. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2014 (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.

December 11[edit]

Wikipedia:Unicode subscripts and superscripts[edit]

Old misguided move to project space, not really needed � (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Tricky. These are "reader-facing", and I think the consensus here is that CNR should not be taken too literally but whether it is a "reader-facing" or "editor-facing" namespace.
So I would Retarget to Help:Multilingual_support#Unicode, as Wikipedia:Unicode does. (I've just marked that as {{R to section}} and left a courtesy comment at the target.)
But that section does not mention subscript and superscript characters, and I doubt if I inserted a sentence back to the target (as a {{see}} or some such), that it would stick. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly an obsolete relic. The target article is an encyclopedic discussion, not a how-to about such characters on Wikipedia, and as Si mentions, subscripts and superscripts aren't mentioned on that help page. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2014 (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) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Strong keep. Should be "the Unicode" with my schoolmaterly head on, but composited and decomposited symbols should thus be redirected. Am I the only one here who as actually had to set these up in type? These are called "penalty symbols" and you get time and a half. See Knuth, 1976, on Metafont. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I see again I am contradicting myself but don't want to change the comment I wrote before the relist. I feel stronger now and was prevaricating around the bush then. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm wavering again. The whole idea of subscripts and superscripts comes from a typographical view of how letterforms are cast. In many languages, they are not subscripts or superscripts but integral parts of making a separate letter. F'rexample in Hungarian O and Ó and are distinct letters (as are one with diacritic marks above and tildes above, which deliberately I am not saying so because they are not LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH TILDE ABOVE but are distinct letters with their own sort order etc). The distinction is how they are written and how they are interpreted, I think: and the lack of "accents" in English doesn't help us here. Sort orders in e.g. Spanish, etc, probably help us more. F'r example, a real example, a good english friend of mine married to a portuguese has the surname "Da Silvera" but there are plenty of "Dasilvera"s and "DaSilveras". "Da" is basically "of" or "von". So does that count and do we sort under S for silvera or D for Da? It ain't as easy as you think, is it? Si Trew (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This redirect doesn't actually have much to do with the execution of superscripts and subscripts, though. Anyone using it will be expecting a W-space page about how to implement those on Wikipedia, but they'll likely be surprised to instead find an encyclopedic discussion of the topic. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Next Bulgarian parliamentary election[edit]

Currently this is outdated. Please delete it or redirect to Elections in Bulgaria Aight 2009 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and consensus here ad nauseam; for all we know, Bulgaria might convene to hold a referendum next week. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Crystal ball policy also says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which is definitely the case here. nOiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that's no good. I for one am confused, and if you don't want WP:CRYSTAL, take WP:NOTNEWS.You imply that we must update these things as events ravel, but that is not the job of an encyclopaedia. Even the "In the News" section on the main page does not report the news, but reports background articles about stuff in the news. We could provide "FURTHER BULLETINS AS EVENTS WARRANT if you want, but I don't see it as WP's task to be so up-to-date; perhaps we differ there.
The section on Parliamentary election says that members are elected for a four-year term, and with some exceptions (several), the last was in 2013. But there was one in 2014, and unless my calendar is on the blink, that is not four years. It's still WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion: the dates are supposed to be fixed but in practice are not; a vote of no confidence would force an early general election, and a government can vote itself out to force the election, as happened for example in the United Kingdom general election, October 1974). Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. We should have a statement somewhere that describes what reliable sources say about the next election - just after the present one that is most likely to be "the next election will happen on or before day month year". People want to know when the next election is, and so they look it up on Wikipedia - our job is to direct them to the best information we have on the topic, even if that information is not much (because there isn't much information out there). Yes, this means we need to keep these redirects up to date, but so what? We successfully keep millions of articles up-to-date. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Good points well made. I try to be brief in reply:
So, these moving targets belong at WikiNews or Fox News or BBC News or whatever, but not in an encyclopaedia.
I think that is the point really on which we disagree. Can we leave the rest of it aside as agreed, and just argue on the "Next"? Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
United Kingdom general election, 2015 (following the form of those I quote) is an R to "Next United"... surely that is wrong. Put the article at 2015, which is permanent, and put the R at "Next", which is variable. That was just lucky because I am a UK citizen who in theory has a vote, if I can afford the postage stamp, but Next United States general election is red; Next United States presidential election is blue(an R to United States presidential election, 2016). I argue that the US presidential election is foreseeable because of fixed terms and past history, leading to lame duck (politics) and so on, but that the UK or Bulgarian ones are not, which is why I have a tenner on at enin a vier with the magic sign that the UK one will be called in January. I might be £12.25 up if it comes in. I note also when I said "The last was in 2013", that was bllue, now it is red. Hence my argument about it being a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are talking about, which can be condensed to "next" when referring to something that does not have a defined point in time is not encyclopaedic? IF that is what you are saying then I strongly disagree - the next election in X is an encyclopaedic target regardless of when it happens. There is no such thing as "truth for all time", the closest we can get is "truth as we understand it at the moment" (but see also WP:Verifiability not truth). I see no difference between the encyclopaedicness of "The next Fooian general election will happen on 7 May 2015.", "The next Barian general election must constitutionally happen on or before 29 September 2019", "The next Bazian general election is expected to happen at some point in 2017, but may happen at any time between December 2014 and March 2018." and "Quuxlad last held a general election in 2009, and the following ones were expected to happen in mid-2013. In December 2011 the military government suspended the constitution and indefinitely postponed the elections. As of October 2014 no replacement date has been set, and it is not clear when (or if) then elections will happen." (assuming all are verifiable, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah, "Next" is the trouble. I argue that "Next" is not encyclopaedic, you say it is. Verifiability vs truth I don't think comes into it much, obviously we all make mistakes etc and I don't think that's in question. I am arguing that "Next" is just always going to cause trouble: as is shown here when we have the "Next" Bulgarian election that has already happened. Now, I imagine (I don't want to put words in your mouth) that you would say "Well, just update the link to Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2016 or whatever". That's a fair stance. The sticking point is whether it is a useful search term: I say it ain't and you say it is, and I think that's a bit of an impasse. What would be great is if we could get stats for how long someone stays on a page (are they reading it or did they quickly click away muttering about it being the "wrong" article), but I dunno whether the Wikimedia software could do that sensibly (or any other web service). Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to track page view times (I don't know how accurately), but if the WMF do it (and I don't think they do) they don't release the data publicly. At Wikimania I attended a talk about reader behaviour, and they tracked the time spent on a page by using a Yahoo Toolbar (only from people who gave explicit consent to use the toolbar and share their data) [19]. The problem is that it isn't possible to distinguish those who moved on quickly because it wasn't what they were looking for, and those who moved on quickly because they quickly found everything they were looking for (e.g. they only wanted to know the date). We can't really cater for those people in the first group - a redlink and the wrong article are equally useless, but an appropriately targetted redirect gives the second group exactly what they were looking for, a redlink makes their search needlessly harder. My contention is that it is much better to help some people and be neutral towards the others than it is to hinder some people and help nobody. This does mean that someone needs to update the redirect when an election occurs, but that is both trivial and unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. That's interesting, the "found it quickly" versus "obviously wrong article" discussion. I can see how that is a difficulty. Marketing people would have a field day with that.
I don't think it is trivial that "someone needs to update the redirect", because I gave examples where "someone" didn't and they were out of date. If it matters, I voted on Sunday. I think it is very important to cdo so, however you vote, whichever way you vote: otherwise you can't complain. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm with Si on this one. I don't think either approach is wrong as such, but I personally think time-sensitive redirects are more trouble than they're worth. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2014 (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) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The handling of time-sensitive redirects could be improved vastly with a template like {{update after}} or {{alarm clock}} (neither are quite suited to the job, but prove that a template that is should be easy to create for someone with the appropriate skills). All it needs is category:Wikipedia redirects in need of updating as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Elections in Bulgaria#Parliamentary election per Thryduulf, as that article has information on parliamentary term limits, so the reader can infer when the next election may take place, therefore providing them information on the next election -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Divine intervention[edit]

The target disambiguation page contains capitalized proper names; I propose that the lowercase "Divine intervention" should point to Miracle as the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Divine Intervention, the DAB, already links Miracle in the lede. It's only one more click away. But, Miracle (disambiguation) should probably link the words "divine intervention" in its lede by same reasoning (which would essentially would serve the purpose of hatnoting per WP:NCCAPS, WP:PRECISION). Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Si. No prejudice against swapping the dab and the redirect, but I don't think any case of divine intervention can necessarily be called a miracle or vice versa. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (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) 18:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Si Trew. I have no opinion on whether the dab and redirect should be swapped or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Si Trew. --Lenticel (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

György Udvardy[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 converted to an article. AfD is available if anyone feels this person is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Soft redirect Cross-language soft redirects are not considered useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination and WP:REDLINK. While a link to an article in Hungarian about a Hungarian person is possibly more useful than a link to an article in say Japanese about something generic like a gondola, people following a link here will expect to find English prose. The redirect also disguises that we are missing an English language article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - an ip has converted it into a stub (in English). Oculi (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (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.

Z (Gamboa)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is useless. Why would this redirect to Pearlasia Gamboa? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2014 (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.

The Old Woman[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete redirect for now. This is a notable play by Robert Wilson (director) and linked from his article; I don't think the title would require further disambiguation, so I suggest we delete the redirect in case someone wants to create an article later. Eloquence* 08:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added these entries in the dab although it points to their respective authors rather than as redlinks. --Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm equally happy with the keep suggestion from the anon below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as is the target old woman is a disambiguation page. Any values of "The Old Woman" can be added as entries onto that dab page. The difference between "The Old Woman" and "Old Woman" is small for disambiguation pages (and problematic with WP:THE constraining article titles), so there's no need to strew dab pages at every single title variant. Robert Wilson's can be indicated at the current target (and if an article occurs, can be linked to from it as well, with adequate parenthesized disambiguation attached for the new article) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per lenticel and anon. Disambiguating to redlinks would be A Bad Thing; there is nothing to disambiguate. We disambiguate terms in the encyclopaedia, not life in general. The bulbs I chucked in on Tuesday will be disambiguated in March, as either tulips or hyacynth. At the moment they are Schroedinger's Cats. It's in praise of the sixpenny rose, as Orwell had it. Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2014 (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.

Troia (Final Fantasy IV)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an subtopic of the redirect's target that is not even mentioned in the article. (There is one mention of this word in one of the references listed on the bottom of the page, but it does not seem like enough information for this redirect to be helpful, due to lack of content of the redirect's topic on its target page.) I do not see the article expanding to include more information regarding the redirect's subject without seeming like a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Have me completely beaten by this. I haven't the faintest idea why I redirected the page, as it is a subject I have no interest in whatever. Presumably there was a reason at the time, but I'm buggered if I can work out what it was. The only thing I can think of was that it resulted from cleaning up a dead link at the disambiguation page Troia. I see no objection to getting shut of the redirect. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Refuse jurisdiction. It depends on the I. It should go to another forum.
It stands on its own feet. I don't like it, but that is because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, it stands.
There's an easy way out of this if one wants to be etymological. Troja should be aligned, because J and I were only made distinct letters in Latin alphabets in roughly the back half of the seventeenth century, so of course Troia is the same as Troja. Trojan, y/j, j/i, clues abounty. I throw in Turkish Dotless Dotless I and Dutch Y. Oh let's have gamma and epsilon. (Hungarian for letter "Y" is epsilon, but there is not a letter "Y" in Hungarian. There is -ly, -gy, -ny) but they are not the letter Y but compound forms whether you are a typesetter, speaker or linguist).
So we go on. Patently all these are for a particular character in a particular game and do not come under RFD, for which they are sensible if there is no other target, but under WP:N when they are. I have a hard enough time translating bios of real people let alone made-up ones with bad transliterations. Qui vive? Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2014 (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.

Valavalis[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 retarget to Characters of the Final Fantasy IV series#Barbariccia per the anon's suggestion. I've also created Valvalis to target the same location. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding any connection between the redirect's title and its current target, or for that matter, anything Final Fantasy-related. In fact, I'm not even able to find an option for retargeting this redirect, and a search for this team on a popular search engine doesn't return any encyclopaedic-quality information. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Sure enough, this information checks out. I'm just going to close this discussion, and implement the anon's suggestion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (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.

December 10[edit]

History ofclub penguin[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is ever going to search on or link to this.  Mogism (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2014 (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.

Globe 199[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an in-game concept (technically, a spell cast by a specific enemy in this game) that is not mentioned in the target article. So, delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Most of my top hits is from certain x99 phone plans from Globe Telecom --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2014 (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.

Gate Panic! (video game)[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 delete. I'm inclined to agree with SnowFire, and I'm concerned that the lack of sources means we're promoting a false name for the game. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The user Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added the following to the list of platforms in Popeye (video game):

Sega Master System (unofficial, known as "Gate Panic! (ゲート·パニック!))

However, there are no reliable sources that confirm existence (leave alone notability) of this version; actually, I tried to google for it and couldn't find any sources at all. DmitTrix (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P. S.: Please also check NATSUME 3 by the same user. DmitTrix (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • keep very common name, everyone knows they're the same thing, don't delete!!!!!72.24.156.34 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2014 (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) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete if everyone knows they're the same, then surely it'll be extremely easy to add the alternate title to the article with a reference, then restore the redirect. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (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.

Plowback retained earnings[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This recently created redirect is an implausible search term—given its length—that consists of two legitimate names of the target put together for no apparent purpose and should be deleted. It has no history worth preserving, no incoming links, and even if someone were to type "plowback retained earnings" into the search box after the redirect is deleted, what they were looking for would come up at the very top of the list. The redirect fails to satisfy any of the reasons for creating and maintaining redirects (an editing guideline) and it also violates WP:POVNAME (a policy) which states that "[a]rticle titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and the first guess in this case would clearly be either Plowback, or Retained earnings, both of which already exist.

The above may not be immediately clear if you're unfamiliar with the term retained earnings, so allow me to put forth the following analogous examples of hypothetical redirects: Fridge refrigerator, Tap faucet, Water dihydrogen monoxide, Dictionary lexicon. Plowback retained earnings is no different than these four, and allowing it to stay would set a bad precedent.

I think I should mention that I had a short dialogue with the creator of this redirect that you may want to read to better inform your judgment before commenting. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - they're not exactly the same thing, more like Refrigerator refrigeration, but close enough that we would never have two separate articles (and we don't; plowback redirects to retained earnings) but it seems unlikely someone would type both into the search box. If they did, they'd find what they're looking for anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD's comment on the nominator's talk page; it may be implausible, but that doesn't meant that it's not useful. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • useful how? looks useless to me72.24.156.34 (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2014 (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) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (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.

Sentencing guidelines[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. I've created a stub; until it's much expanded, it's probably going to work as a dab. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentencing guidelines exist in places other than the U.S.; presumably they also exist within the U.S. at levels other than the federal. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's probably an article to be had here. A dab is probably doable, but it could look a bit forced. Maybe just a stub with a sentence or two about what sentencing guidelines are, and mention the US and UK bodies that govern them? --BDD (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a simple keep unless anyone wants to make it a stub/dab page, which they don't need an RfD to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:52, 10 November 2014 (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) 21:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • disambiguate clearly this is biased, as sentencing guidelines exist in many jurisdictions -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • dabify with Thryduulf's suggestions. A bit unwieldy but I think it's better than the present status. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2014 (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.

Final Fantasy 3.5[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This "title" was a rumored video game that was possibly going to be made before the redirect's target's subject, but all searches that I made for this title do not show any valid notability claims. But, from what I found, this redirect's title does not refer to its target. Also, there is no mention of the redirect's title in the target article. And, from a search on a popular search engine, the redirect's title could also refer to something related to Dungeons & Dragons, but I'm not finding any immediately clear retargeting options. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I added Final Fantasy IV Prototype to this nomination since that term specifically refers to the subject "Final Fantasy 3.5" and is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • D&D? Maybe someone made a D&D 3.5 campaign in the Final Fantasy world. Not sure why else the term would return D&D results. (Also, I so want to play that.) --BDD (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom's findings.--Lenticel (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2014 (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.

History ofinformation technology auditing[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 keep as longstanding, a former page name, and only a weak typo. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Improbable, pointless and completely unused redirect which has somehow survived since 2005  Mogism (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep/weak delete (I'm not sure which side I am more of) somewhat plausible. - TheChampionMan1234 02:47, 11 December 2014 (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.

Dragon Warrior[edit]

This discussion's purpose is to determine a primary topic for this term. My mind is split between three options, all of which I am neutral: "keep" (the first game in the Dragon Quest series is the primary topic), "retarget to Dragon Quest" (the video game series is the primary topic), or "move Dragon Warrior (disambiguation) to Dragon Warrior" (there is no primary topic). Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. All basic searches show the first title in the series to be the expected result for "Dragon Warrior", though it might be worth directly mentioning the series in the hatnote. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  17:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Dragon Warrior (video game) and redirect to Dragon Quest (video game). Then, after renaming, redirect "Dragon Warrior" to Dragon Quest franchise. If you are unsure, don't hesitate to ask me. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum Please someone close this, please discuss it at WP:RM - TheChampionMan1234 02:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a move request. One of the options could result in a move, but that's just because WP:DABNAME exists. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Move and retarget per George Ho. If both the game and series are known as Dragon Warrior, the disambiguators should follow those of the articles. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CTY Parent[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing titled "CTY Parent" was ever mentioned in the target article. [20] Vanjagenije (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2014 (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.

Association of Lawyers in Government Corporation[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of a kind is mentioned in the target article (not in current revision, not in any older revision [21]). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unexplained redirect. Google search gave me 13 hits, none of which gives further information about this organization. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (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.

Gotanco[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No "Gotanco" is mentioned in the article (not in current revision, not in any old revision [22]). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This seems to be an uncommon surname and I also can't a suitable new target within the wiki.--Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (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.

Pearlasia Gamboa (president of Melchizedek)[edit]

Highly improbable term for searching "Pearlasia Gamboa". totally useless redirect. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Somewhat unlikely search term, but accurate and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep per BDD --Lenticel (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

World Karate Competition[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 retarget to Karate World Championships. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about karate is even mentioned in the target article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2014 (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.

Pearlie (Pearlasia Gamboa)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is highly unusual search term for "Pearlasia Gamboa". It is not useful at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (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.

Kobuto[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing titled "Kobuto" is mentioned in the target article (not now, not in the old revisions before recent edits [23]). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete due to the association not being clear, but since the redirect might have the option of being retargeted. I am not sure if this redirect is a good candidate for retargeting as an {{R from misspelling}} to any other article due to there being at least two articles which this may be a misspelling (Kabuto or Kobudō), though Google believes that "kobuto" is a misspelling for the former example, Kabuto. Either way, I oppose "keep"ing the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete it seems to be an location in Sierra Leone. This is probably better off as a redlink--Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Google believes this to be a mispelling of "Kabuto", so if we keep this, it should redirect to Kabuto (disambiguation). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2014 (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.

International crimes of Beverly Hills[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this redirect. It is too vague. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete since I cannot find a good option for retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2014 (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.

Angel of Music, or The Private Life of Giselle (2007) by Maria Andrianova[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete due to having so much extra disambiguation that searching this term is very unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Struck out my vote given that the redirect is 7 years old. So, I'm neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completely harmless 7-year-old {{R from move}}. While it is "unlikely" that is not a reason to delete a redirect, this is not incorrect or misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep quite long but otherwise harmless redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the name is mentioned in several places, by the way, my opinion is independent from the above two votes. (i.e. I do not have an opinion on the other two opinions above) - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 11 December 2014 (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.

December 8[edit]

Abeh[edit]

Longstanding redirect to a dab page with no indication what an appropriate target would be. No incoming links other than from the talk page of the user who created it, who "loves creating disambiguation pages". No context. Ivanvector (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment "Abeh" appears to be quite a common element in Iranian place names [24], one of which, Abeh-ye Now, is listed on the dab page (why only one and why that one in particular I don't know). Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The Iranian term may mean "town" or something equally generic, so unless it can be demonstrated that any of these places are known simply as "Abeh", they're only partial title matches. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Koeboluzioa[edit]

There is no reason that we need a redirect from the Basque-language word for coevolution on the English Wikipedia. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete General topic not specific to Basque-language areas. - TheChampionMan1234 03:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale presented for deletion. Making content findable is a necessary thing to make an encyclopaedia useful. WilyD 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Seriously? We should keep a redirect from a random language version of a title that has nothing to do with the subject? Should every article have a redirect from the title in each of the 300 or so languages supported by Wikipedia? --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE
      ) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no logical connection between the idea of coevolution and the Basque community. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Church mouse[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect is to article in which this term is never used or explained. A "church mouse" is not a "kind" of "mouse." It appears to be a literary expression, and as such it should exist as a red link here on Wikipedia rather than as a redirect to an irrelevant subject. KDS4444Talk 01:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This seems to be derived from two expressions, "poor as a church mouse" and "quiet as a church mouse" (the latter isn't in Wiktionary), although both appear in quotes in en.wp articles. I'm torn as to what to do here, as there is possibly scope for a short article about the concept/expressions, we have the article The Church Mouse (a 1934 film) that would make a good target for the redirect and Poor as a Church Mouse (a 1931 film) that would be a good entry on a dab page. There is also Robert (Mouseman) Thompson (who did a lot of work for churches, and church mouse is the origin of his nickname) which might be an appropriate see also on a dab page. The current target is incorrect though - I'm sure of that much! Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting points. I am finding that the expression "poor as a church mouse" has English language traditions that run as far back as the middle 17th century, and variants in German (arm wie eine Kirchenmaus) and Scots (puir as a kirkmouse) recorded in the 18th. The films aside, it looks to me like "church mouse" really should redirect to an article titled Poor as a church mouse which does not yet exist. Deleting this redirect frees up that possibility-- which I do suspect will happen 'someday. KDS4444Talk 14:10, 8 December 2014 (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.

Unicode compat-aliases[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 keep. Despite the unusual punctuation this appears to be a phrase in use. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible redirect made by a blocked editor. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. The redirect's author is short-term blocked (36 hours) rather than banned, and this was not created in violation of a block or ban, so this factor is not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • very weak keep the terms "compat aliases" and "non-compat aliases" (always unhyphenated it seems) do get google hits, primarily in things like bug reports, change histories and feature requests. The exact phrase "Unicde compat aliases" appears only here, but the context seems to be almost always unicode so I don't see that as a problem. I'm very much not a programmer though so I'd like to see input from someone who does understand the jargon before firming up my recommendation - I'll see if there is a relevant WikiProject. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/clarification I am the one who made the redirect. The initial revision seemed pretty useless so I figured a redirect would be slightly more helpful. I'm more on the engineering side of computers so I don't actually know what "Unicode compat-aliases" are or if/how the subject and the redirect target are related, but that was the only bluelink in the article so I went for it. Basically, do whatever. Deadbeef 23:33, 8 December 2014 (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.

December 4[edit]

My Anaconda Don't[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 keep. This one the most prominent line in the Minaj song, and is quite likely to be searched on. -- Beland (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems iffy. It's only part of a line from "Baby Got Back" (echoed in Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda", where this originally pointed). On its own, it doesn't seem to be very meaningful or a likely search term. BDD (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep tasteless yes, but it's mentioned in the article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, this is not a subject discussed on the target article, it is merely just-another-sentence in there. We generally don't need a redirect from pieces of sentences / lyrics, that's for the search engine to find it (and it does) and there is no need to use it as a link-sentence. - Nabla (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (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.

Koeboluzioa[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. I thought this sounded familiar. This redirect is already under discussion. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Koeboluzioa, and comment there. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete redirect. There is no reason that we need a redirect from the Basque-language word for coevolution on the English Wikipedia. This is a general topic not specific to Basque-language areas. There's no logical connection between the idea of coevolution and the Basque community. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete as nonsense. (WP:RFD#D5. Searching, I have no evidence this is Basque language at all; commons:Koeboluzioa.pdf would provide some substantiation were it not have to be deleted, I imagine for good reason. The nearest I get is:
And since I can understand that a bit since Basque is a bit of a latinate language and a bit celtic, this bit infusing arabic makes the whole thing rather a pidgin that is patently not Basque language, but that is what My Favourite Search Engine brings up for me. So how helpful is this? R to Basque terrorism seems as likely Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Through interwikis, I found eu:Koeboluzio, but it mostly uses "koeboluzioa". Inflection, perhaps? --BDD (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps; Basque language is no help here to me to say how nouns decline or adjectives agree. Reading through the document I give above (no idea where I got the idea of arabic infusion; it was late), "-oa" is used quite a few times ("ikasprozesuaren ebaluazioa", "zikloa", "materielia oinarrizkoa", "erabiltzeko modukoa", "dogmatikoa", chiefly as adjective with agreement to a noun ending in -a or -n, but sometimes as a noun itself. Should we ask at ikiWP:WikiProject Basque or something? Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've invited user:Iñaki LL to this discussion. They are the first user I found in category:User eu-N who appears to be currently active on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help here, I'm not sure what the targeted issue is, but here it goes: The word is "koeboluzio" as a dictionary entry, check out terminology dictionaries (Euskalterm). Dictionary entries in Basque are without absolutive case marker "a", just the root. Hope this helps, regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, this is English Wikipedia and the topic has no particular affinity for this language -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But it might have an affinity with language evolution, since Basque is as weird as Welsh in that regard; not sure yet. At least English is fairly simple, we get Romans to invade and the French to invade and then some Germans and try to shoehorn Latin grammar onto English which doesn't have any, and some Irishmen and Scots and others from people we once ruled and, er, that's it. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2014 (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.

Final Prophet[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 retarget to Last prophet. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A whole bunch of different people have been called "Final Prophet" including several that lived long after Muhammed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguation per nomination. Whenever "a whole bunch of different" notable people/things have been called the same thing then a disambiguation page is the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • retarget per below (why did I not think to look for that?). Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice find by User:KTo288. I didn't think of it either. Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation per nom. Many have been called "the final prophet". --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Retarget per Thryduulf et. al. I thought that Muhammad would be the primary topic for "Final Prophet" but that seems not to be the case. Ivanvector (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the existing Last prophet.--KTo288 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Last prophet per KTo288 --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to last prophet. That's a short enough stub to effectively serve as a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, a list could be spun out of that if it ever becomes long enough to justify it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to last prophet, identical concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2014 (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.

Government payroll[edit]

I would like to delete this, because "government payroll" does not mean "payroll tax". Normally "government payroll" means the number of government employees and the amount of their salaries. It was used in that sense in the only article to link to it (Reform of the administrative divisions of China). But currently the target is Payroll tax, which is another thing entirely. I deleted the link from the China article. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to government operations. Our public finance articles are a bit of a mess; I didn't find a better target. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • They are. Public sector and State ownership are essentially stubs but I assume a lot of warring over them to reduce them to the feebleness that I expect from anything I pay my taxes to. Neither has a section on employment. public funds redirects to government spending, which does say "federal civilian employees" in section government spending#Federal spending, but that is particular to the US anyway (I note that that article is not marked WP:WORLDWIDE, but I have tried repeatedly to make a list and redirect for Countries that are not the United States). Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I have no idea what this would mean. As a British person, I would take it to mean all rhose who are paid by the government, i.e. the public sector, which is a rather wasty article and I shall nhold a seance to get John Maynard Keynes back or something. The head articles on this are ridiculous "Boy's Annual of Economics 1957" (Keynes as the poster girl) knows more about it than Wikipedia does. And has better pictures. Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I looked through quite a few of the articles to find a specific mention of payroll, but didn't. I assume that there is some economic indicator that is attached to this that would be a better retarget, but I don't know which off hand. In a business sense, payroll is typically an overhead or operational expense, and I assume the same is true of government budgets, thus my recommendation. Disclosure: I have spent no Crown funds on this report. Ivanvector (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Tax Freedom Day is possible, and I found some more sources for that (I am not sure I agree with the lede that it is a "US concept") e.g.
Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ivanvector, that would be better. Another possibility is Civil service. The United States section of that page has one paragraph on federal government employment. But it looks like we don't have an article on government payroll as such. Maybe I should write one. It could display a graph, like this FRED graph from the St. Louis Fed. Apparently the BLS also has data for local and state government employment, so add those to the graph, explain what the data is, and there's your article. Call it something like "Government employment in the United States". – Margin1522 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, happy to help create it any way I can. The chief difficulty in creating it, I imagine, would be WP:NEUTRAL to prevent any suggestion the "government spending is ipso facto bad". e.g P. J. O'Rourke's essays in Eat the Rich suggest so and are worth quoting (for example that he says that the US govt spends 40% on public-sector spending, about as much as Europe, but gets less for it and it would be better if you just didn't tax people so much and let them decide what to do with it), but it can be done, but that, I imagine, will be the chief hurdle. Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Putting "government" next to another noun does not make the resulting compound noun a "thing", even if it sound like it could be one. I get the feeling that "government payroll" is not an agreed-upon "thing", and if this is the case, then redirecting readers to a thing is maybe not a good idea. If there isn't a reasonably clear and obvious target for a redirect, then it should exist as a DAB page, but even THAT requires distinct meanings that can parsed, and if a term is simply too broad then even a DAB page loses its usefulness. Examples of other equally vague subjects without articles, redirects, or DAB pages: Government remuneration, Government order, Government procedure, Government agitation, etc. etc. KDS4444Talk 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jenova Reunion Theory[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic is not mentioned at its target (Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Jenova). Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete according to the ff wikia, this is merely one of the several plot points in the FF7 story. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2014 (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.

Lucretia Valentine[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

After I targeted this to the only possible target which it could refer (Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Lucrecia Crescent), I then realized that ... the redirect's title is misleading since this character was never referred as the name stated in the redirect. For this reason, it should probably be deleted in the event that this name/phrase belongs to another existing or future notable topic. Steel1943 (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, as "Lucretia Valentine" is not mentioned at the target page. I find it odd that there's a "Lucrecia Crescent" and a "Vincent Valentine" listed at the page. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: AmaryllisGardener, I thought the same, and considered just tagging the redirect with {{R from incorrect name}}, but I still thought confusion would exist for readers who are not familiar with the redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment perhaps I do too many cryptic crosswords but I was thinking of Lucrezia Borgia who was Valencian (but not Valentian). Lucretia Borgia redirects to her, but Lucrecia Borgia is an R to Lucrezia Borgia (1947 film). Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear I have probably opened a can of worms (disambiguation) now. Si Trew (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
...Until I decided to boldly retarget Lucrecia Borgia to Lucrezia Borgia; seemed rather uncontroversial, considering that its previous target had disambiguation in its title, and the new target doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym. I found some Lucretia Valentines in my google search but is unrelated to FF7. Based on the story stated in the FF wikia, it seems that there were some plot important interactions between Lucrecia Crescent and Vincent Valentine. My theory is that some fans were shipping the two with Lucrecia getting Vincent's surname in a fanbased wedding. --Lenticel (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2014 (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.

Blitz (Final Fantasy VI)[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target. This is a "special move" used by this character, but is not mentioned at the target, and is questionable in its encyclopaedic value. Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nom, though it may be worth editing the target (#Sabin Figaro) to mention it; there's already an oblique reference to it ("his final martial technique"). --BDD (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was looking over the character's quotes about Blitz but I'm not comfortable to use them as cites to justify its mention in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2014 (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.

Light of Judgement[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, this could vaguely refer to a concept related Yu-Gi-Oh! or Kefka Palazzo, but neither one of them is notable or mentioned on either previously referenced article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete there are oh so many different things this refers to. John 3:19 for example. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not mentioned at Yu-Gi-Oh! (to which Yu-Gi-Oh redirects; not sure about the exclamation mark in the title there being a Good Idea). I note Judgement of the light and Judgement of the Light are red lights, so far. 67.70, you're silly, John was referring to contemplation and seeing sense: this is Wikipedia! Si Trew (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Judgement of the Light is a Booster pack, Light of Judgement is a card. They're two different things. --Lenticel (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's just a cool sounding attack for FF and a decent trap card for Yugioh. Both are not even that notable outside their respective universes. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Lenticel: there are uses beyond a video game. With, I take it you are a fan of this game, and it's difficult then to balance your expert opinion against what an idiot like me who has never heard of this game might expect to find. Could you confirm that you kinda know this game inside-out, that is useful expert knowledge but perhaps not for the rest of us. This probably sounds sarcastic written but is not meant to be. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @SimonTrew: Apologies for the late reply (typhoon issues). There a two games mentioned here. Yes, I've played Final Fantasy VI and this is indeed just a minor piece of lore within the game itself. As for the Yugioh card, it isn't even a deck staple. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (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.

Gastra[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 keep with hatnote. -- Beland (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not able to find any references via search engines that refer to this topic (Emperor Gestahl) by this spelling in any language. For this reason, this redirect may confuse readers since it could be confused with the commonly-used prefix "Gastro-". Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment retargetting to Gaastra is also acceptable to me -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is apparently an English rendering of his Japanese name. It's not in the translation we use at Music of Final Fantasy VI, but I believe I've seen the 13th song of the second disc labeled "The Empire 'Gastra'". Amazon shows it as "The Empire 'Ghastra'". So maybe that's what I'm thinking of. I remember being baffled by it as well, but it is in use. Man, I'm really letting my nerd flag fly here.
tl;dr: It's an obscure name, but absent some evidence of confusion, I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget as a mispelling of Gaastra, Michigan. There are several google hits that I found where "Gaastra" was misspelled as "Gastra" --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's been around since 2005, when in August this edit changed it from redirecting to Emperor Gestahl (which also redirects there). For housekeeping I've added {{R to section}} at both those R's and a courtesy comment at the target per WP:SPECIFICLINK, but I hope that does not influence this discussion (otherwise I wouldn't have). Gaastra, Michigan should be hatnoted at that section, though.Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2014 (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.

DQ anime[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 withdrawn by nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"DQ" doesn't solely stand for "Dragon Quest", as shown on the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment do other topics have japanimations? (anime?) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google searches make it absolutely clear that Dragon Quest is the only notable anime (indeed pretty much the only anime) referred to as "DQ". Excluding "Dragons Quest" from the search leaves typos and misspellings of the same target and various discussions, mainly on TV Tropes (an unreliable source), about the topic of drag queens in anime. Tag this as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and all will be well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Typing "DQ" should lead you to the DAB page, but typing "DQ anime" should lead you to this topic. There's not that much difference if it were "DQ (anime)". Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (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.

Where is abu dhabi[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 by Secret. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's not a likely search term. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, A10 to begin with. Sam Sing! 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment A10 (along with all the other A series of speedy deletion criteria) does not apply to redirects, only the G and R series criteria do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Where_is_abu_dhabi has been viewed 0 times in the last 90 days." Delete. Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (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.

Bronze plan[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not seam as a useful redirect to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as an ambiguous term and/or interwiki redirect, or weak retarget to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards as the section of an article in the English Wikipedia which mentions the term as intended by the current redirect target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete highly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Indeed this does seem to be the primary search result for "bronze plan" on Google, either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. If there are other possibilities, perhaps disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Since when are we a vector for Google Search? Frequently, Wikipedia is top there (and I'll bet all Lombard-street to a China orange that it uses WP interwikis as a good corpus for its machine translation service, but it don't say so) and one has to look past that to find RS, or one may run in circles. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but WP's purpose is not to appear at the top of Google searches, that is irrelevant. Our job is to help people find information. If Google Search happens to find our information useful, that is up to them. Nothing to do with us. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • To put it plainly, if we decide to retarget or delete this redirect, or make an article, Google Search will follow. It is a Master/slave (Yes, I checked Master-slave etc too). Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • To put it more plainly WE ARE THE MASTERS HA HA HA HA HA HA AND YOU MUST DO OUR BIDDING, OR MAYBE FORFEIGHT YOUR BATHPLUGS. Sorry, couldn't resist. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, not at all my meaning. I'm using Google results to gauge what real-world meanings are attached to this term, as an analogue for what people have in mind then they type this term into our search box. Wikipedia's ranking on Google doesn't matter because we're on top anyway, nyah nyah Ivanvector (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2014 (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.

Gold plan[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 delete. Given this result, and the one above, I will be following TexasAndroid's suggestion and deleting Silver plan and Platinum plan as well. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not seam as a useful redirect to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as an ambiguous term and/or interwiki redirect, or weak retarget to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards as the section of an article in the English Wikipedia which mentions the term as intended by the current redirect target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete as ambiguous. My google search tells me that "gold plan" is what some companies offer as the best deals for their services. --Lenticel (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lenticel: Interesting. This is what my own google search comes up with:
  • Gold Health Plans - Coverage from $49, Time's Limited‎ Adwww.government-health-insurance.com/‎ Enroll by 12/15/14, Coverage Jan 1. Recently Married?Obamacare Plans ExplainedNew Baby?Turning 26?
  • Search Results
  • Obamacare Gold Health Insurance Plans - Healthpocket www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/gold-health-plans Nov 25, 2014 - Gold plans have the same standard health benefits as the bronze & silver plans but have lower out-of-pocket expenses and higher premiums. Gold Health Plan | HealthCare.gov https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/gold-health-plan/
  • HealthCare.gov Gold Health Plan. Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print. See Health Plan Categories. Can we improve this page? Footer. How to choose a Marketplace plan | HealthCare.gov https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/
  • HealthCare.gov Plan category: There are 5 categories of Marketplace insurance plans: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Catastrophic. Plans in these categories differ based ... Deductible - ‎Out-of-pocket maximum/limit - ‎What is Coinsurance? How are bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans different ... www.bcbsm.com/index/health-insurance-help/faqs/.../metal-tiers.html
  • To make shopping for health insurance easier, plans you purchase for you and your family are divided into metal tiers: bronze, silver, gold and platinum. We all ... How To Choose Between Bronze, Silver, Gold And Platinum ... www.forbes.com/.../how-to-choose-between-bronze-silver-gold-a...Forbes Oct 1, 2013 - Plans in the Marketplace are separated into four levels – Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum – based on how you and the plan can expect to ...
  • +MORE Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: Search results in are based on your computer's/devices' geographic location. If anything, the above statement seems like deletion rationale based on WP:WORLDWIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete highly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Less clearly than "bronze plan", but still a frequent result is either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. Other results are various companies selling their top-of-the-line product or service as a "gold plan" but none are particularly notable here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. A Gold Card or Gold Plan is not worth the plastic it is embossed on. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Silver plan and Platinum plan exist as well, and are very similar. I would think that these other two should share the same fate as Gold Plan. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2014 (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.

December 3[edit]

Air Control[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 retarget to Air traffic control. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Article was merged to the current target at AfD for lack of notability. The material was subsequently removed from the target article for lack of notability and relevance. Now a useless redirect on a subject for which Wikipedia has no material at all. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - The redirect's target is being overhauled with new inclusion criteria, and the title now does not fit it, so I don't believe it belongs there anymore. I'd be open to changing the target, but I can't think of any that make sense off-hand, which leads me to my "delete" choice. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is so non-notable that there isn't anywhere to redirect it to. It never even fit the redirection target, it just should have never existed, and its AfD process was erroneous. The whole idea was basically minor WP:FANCRUFT. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air traffic control, the current target of redirect Air control. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air traffic control per Steel1943 (talk). However, I'm also open to a dab that points to Air supremacy (the military control of the air) as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this option as well. It's an entirely different thing, but would certainly be a valid search term for that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment That would be an acceptable option to me as well. Safiel (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm fine with a hatnote as well. --Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2014 (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.

Kathleen Courtney[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 - converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this was probably meant to refer to Kathleen Courtney, also Kathleen D'Olier Courtney (1878-1974), the suffragist and relief worker. The redirect target, Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith, was born Catherine Potter and I can find no evidence that she was ever referred to as Kathleen. gobonobo + c 18:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Retarget to where? We don't seem to have an article on Kathleen Courtney the suffragist, unless I'm completely inept with the search box today. Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Err good point, I must have misread the nomination. In which case delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an article could be written, but in the meantime delete. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gsearch for me for "kathleen courtney suffragette" gives several RS and I can probably make a stub. Will probably forget to do so though. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please. I've converted it into a stub article. I don't want to add more since most RS are copyright and I need to tread carefully to expand it. There's a nice draft lifted from the author in draft space at this title, who I have asked by email permission to use his text. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2014 (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.

Bloodhound (missile):[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No idea how this got created in the first place, but obviously in error. Perhaps I just speedy it?. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The redirect having a colon ":" is pretty obviously a typo, could just be speedy deleted by reason wp:R3, as an implausible typo. There are no inbound links to it. --doncram 02:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this redirect exists because of a typo in a page move made on 13 October which was not corrected until 3 December. I would decline an R3 speedy deletion on those grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Implausible typo", WP:RFD#D8. (That guideline is self-contradictary since it's not only plausible but certain that someone typo'd it to get here in the first place; but I'm done with arguing that the RfD reasons are logical.) Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2014 (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.

Truth & Treason[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 delete. -- Beland (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

According to its talk page, this film was in development in 2007. As an article, it described a 2011 film. At Jamie Thomas King, it's listed as a 2012 film in pre-production. You know, I really don't think it's coming out at this point. And regardless, it doesn't make sense to redirect to the subject of the film when the film isn't mentioned at that article. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Seven years later, it's still "in development" on IMDb, Sounds pretty dead. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2014 (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.

Gun laying radar[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 retarget with possibilities. I added a link to Category:Gun laying radars from gun laying, which is the new target. It at least gives good background information as-is. -- Beland (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Delete' This is an example of a gun-laying radar, not the gun laying radar. The term is most associated with a series of UK radars, not this one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete sounds like a good candidate for an article. Delete per WP:REDLINK--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:REDLINK , should be an article, instead of a redirect to a specific instance, so redlink to encourage creation. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. In any case the current target is incorrect, it should be Würzburg radar (which is in Category:Gun laying radars) not the article about the city in northern Bavaria after which it is named. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thryduulf, per the redirect's edit history, it seems that the nominated redirect has targeted Würzburg radar since it was created. (For this reason, I updated the nomination appearance and my rationale.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gun laying and tag with {{R with possibilities}}, given that the word "radar" is used in Gun laying from time to time to help describe the article's subject's use. Otherwise, weak delete per above and WP:REDLINK. Also, I oppose retarget to Würzburg radar since the article describes itself as the "primary gun laying radar", not as the "only" or the "original". (Struck since Würzburg radar is the current target of the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gun laying as one of the technologies to do so. A split later (or even now, really) when it has adequate materials for an article. Current redirect is not appropriate like we will never redirect Search engine to Google. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 04:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Hisashiyarouin: Please note the correction I just made in the nomination; Gun laying radar currently targets and has always targeted Würzburg radar, not Würzburg. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2014 (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.

Kobe (singer)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect leads to the assumption that Kobe is DJ Khalil, which is not the case. 92.203.189.8 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Kobe is a completely different person and looks as if someones attempted to promote him. –Davey2010(talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (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.

Serene Branson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Serene Branson

September 19, 2009[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 delete --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2014 (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.

Charles john david freeman[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 G3, as well as the other redirects referenced in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The connect between the redirect's subject ... whoever the subject is ... and the redirect's target is not clear in the least. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

this edit to Charles Freeman, a DAB page, by creator around the same time in 2009, together with the redirects below, would tend to indicate a bout of vandalism:
Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (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.